Preamble

House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that The Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Forth Harbour Reorganisation Scheme Confirmation (Special Procedure) Act 1967.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Hospital Scientific and Technical Services (Committee)

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the committee established to advise on hospital scientific and technical services in Great Britain has no representative nominated by the medical laboratory technicians and only one member from Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): The membership of this committee of seven members is appropriate for its concern with future scientific development of the hospital services generally and the broad pattern of staffing that this will require. The main interests have been invited to give evidence and will be consulted in the subsequent working out of practical proposals.

Mr. Davidson: I am obliged for that Answer, but is the Minister aware that there is no one on the committee who is directly involved in the training of scientific and technical laboratory staff, and there a re no representatives of the employers of such staff of such categories as the Scottish National Blood Transfusion

Association and the members of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Health Boards and Departments?

Mr. Millan: This is a committee of only seven members, and it is appropriate to the kind of job which it has been asked to do. The working out of the proposals will involve consultation, as I have said, with a wide variety of interests, including those to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the ratio of persons in scientific and technological employment in Scotland is much greater than it is in England and, therefore, there should be more such representatives on this committee? In 1961—this is the latest figure I have been able to obtain—the total was 23,500.

Mr. Millan: It so happens that the Scottish member on the committee is Professor Currie, from Aberdeen. I am sure that, at least in my hon. and learned Friend's view, one Aberdonian is as good as any two other Scotsmen.

Economic Planning (Consultative Bodies)

Mr. James Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the regional economic consultative groups and advisory committees which he has set up throughout Scotland, and define their functions and responsibilities.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I have set up economic planning consultative groups for the Borders, the North-East, the South-West and Tayside. Their function is to advise me on the formulation and implementation of development policies proposals for their respective regions.
I have also set up the Highlands and Island Development Consultative Council to advise the Highlands and Islands Development Board on the exercise and performance of its functions.

Mr. Davidson: I thank the Secretary of State for his Answer, but will he not agree that, instead of piecemeal advice and centralised administration, the urgent need is for a North-East development authority and, perhaps, six other regional authorities in Scotland, on the pattern of


the Highlands and Islands Development Board, but responsible to elected regional councils?

Mr. Ross: That is a fine and long supplementary question, but the hon. Gentleman should keep in mind that we have made a start, we have set up the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and at that time I said that it might well be a pattern for the future. It is far too early to go on from that now. I do not regard the advice given by the members of the Board as piecemeal. They look at problems in their areas in whole, and they have set up distinctive committees for consideration of special problems. I would rather the hon. Gentleman appreciated the good work they are doing instead of denying them their due.

Private House Building (Standards)

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made, or is being made, in protecting the private house purchaser from shoddy building.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): Good progress is being made through the developing activities of the National House-Builders Registration Council. One hundred and eight Scottish builders are now registered, and they build over 90 per cent. of all new houses for sale in Scotland. In this regard, the industry has more than achieved the aim set it by the Government last year.

Mr. Hunter: Will my hon. Friend take it that a number of my hon. Friends and I receive complaints from time to time regarding major defects or small irritating defects in private house building, and I am very pleased to know that something is being done?

Dr. Mabon: If my hon. Friend will pass on to me any information of that kind, I shall see that the managers of the Council and their inspectors have it and will look into it.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: What progress is being made regarding the supervision of local authority houses to ensure that they are always up to standard?

Dr. Mabon: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have made inquiries whenever representations have been made to us. We are alive to the one or two deficiencies there have been in the past, and through the Scottish Development Department we try hard to ensure that houses in the local authority sector are well built.

Road Maintenance (Lanarkshire)

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what money has been allocated to Lanarkshire County Council for maintenance to roads during the winter period; how this compares with the figure for last year; and if he will make a statement.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Under the Government's arrangements for helping development areas this winter, £75,000 has been allocated to Lanark County Council for additional maintenance work on non-trunk roads. There is no comparable figure for last year, when there were no similar special arrangements. Assistance for road maintenance work by local authorities is normally provided through the rate support grant.

Mr. Hamilton: How do the trunk roads fare this year as compared with last? What does Lanarkshire County Council receive under the special winter programme, as compared with what is payable to other local authorities?

Dr. Mabon: Lanarkshire County Council has fared quite well in its total allocation for maintenance work under the programme compared with Scottish county councils as a whole. My right hon. Friend authorised £241,000 for the county council for normal trunk road maintenance in the financial year 1966–67, and this year he has allocated £214,000, plus the £87,000 for additional trunk road maintenance under the special programme we are discussing.

New House Costs

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now report on the findings of the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee on the apparent high prices of houses in the private sector in Scotland.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: As the House was told earlier in the year, the Scottish


Housing Advisory Committee made an initial investigation of some aspects of new house costs. To obtain further information my right hon. Friend has commissioned, with the agreement of the Committee, a study by the Department of Building of the Heriot-Watt University.

Mr. Hamilton: I realise that the report will be very comprehensive and that it will be some time before it is submitted to the House. Will my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend to deal with certain aspects when the report comes to him, bearing in mind that houses in Scotland cost more than they do down south?

Dr. Mabon: I expect that the whole study will take three years, but we hope to receive useful information while it is proceeding, and perhaps we can act on it.

Mr. G. Campbell: Will the Government take into account that such studies appear to be overtaken by events, because the price of houses in Scotland is now badly affected by devaluation?

Dr. Mabon: That is an exaggeration. It is true that houses in Scotland are more costly than in England for climatic reasons and because of building standards and other factors which are not yet defined. That is why we have asked the university to carry out this comprehensive study.

Unpaid Fines

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the observations made by the Lord Justice Clerk in a recent case to the effect that a person who was convicted of carrying an offensive weapon over a year ago and fined £100 has only paid 30s. so far, if he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to deal with the problem of unpaid fines.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): The present legislation on the enforcement of fines was introduced by the previous Government as lately as 1963. The courts have powers under that Act to enforce the fines they impose.

Mr. Stodart: Is the Minister aware that the public will feel considerable dismay at that Answer? Does he agree that such offences must be matched by

severity of sentence, and that if the efforts of the judges in that direction are stultified the legislation in question will have no effect?

Mr. Buchan: There is no reason to say that they are stultified. On the contrary, a high percentage of the fines have been paid. The courts have methods by which they can enforce payment. In the case commented on, a warrant had already been issued for the person's detention in a young offenders' institution.

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that £146,000 is outstanding in fines imposed in the cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dundee and Aberdeen; how much of this sum consists of fines being paid in instalments; how much is classified as being overdue t and how this figure compares with that of one year ago and two years ago, respectively.

Mr. Buchan: I do not have this information.

Mr. Stodart: I thank the Minister for sending me a copy of the letter to say that he did not have the information. Is it not a fact that legislation which the right hon. Gentleman is on the record as describing as desirable at the time is being circumvented, and the law being brought into total disrepute, by fines being disregarded in this way?

Mr. Buchan: As I said before there is no question of the fines being disregarded. A very high percentage is paid. Very often hon. Members opposite are confused between outstanding and overdue fines. Some are being paid by instalments and hon. Members consider them as if they had been going by default, but that is not the case.

Mr. Noble: But if the Minister does not have the facts, how can he be so definite about what the position is?

Mr. Buchan: We have facts for the year on particular courts. The point is that I am not prepared to ask all the courts of Scotland, involved as they are in dealing with the present situation, to put in the necessary effort to make that kind of statistical account thus taking up time that could be devoted to more important jobs. The courts have the necessary statistics to keep an eye on the individual offender to ensure that a fine is being paid.

Mr. Dewar: Will my hon. Friend confirm again that the courts have power to imprison for non-payment of fines? Does he agree that they are rightly using that power very sparingly as it also victimises the families of the men concerned and ultimately places a greater financial burden on the State than if the fine had been paid?

Mr. Buchan: The courts have power to imprison, and my hon. Friend is correct in saying that it would throw an extra imposition on the taxpayers if the people concerned were imprisoned for default. The proportion who have had to be imprisoned in recent years is about 3 or 4 per cent.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of the £121,000 of fines outstanding in Glasgow was imposed in connection with the carrying of offensive weapons and the committing of a breach of the peace, respectively.

Mr. Buchan: I do not have this information.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: I recognise that it might be difficult to get the figures, but does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are six people in Edinburgh and seven in Glasgow attached to the Sheriff Clerk's Office engaged in collecting fines which are not paid? The situation is intolerable, and it is wrong that criminals who go about with offensive weapons should not pay the penalty when it is imposed on them.

Mr. Buchan: First, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so critical about an Act introduced by his own party. Secondly, there is no evidence that the officials are not functioning properly in ensuring that fines are paid. Thirdly, I do not propose to impose additional burdens on the already overburdened courts by breaking down this kind of statistical information which does not assist the courts in tackling the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers, namely, enforcing payment of fines.

Emigration

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the net emigration loss from Scotland to England in each of the last three years; and what

is the latest information available regarding the present position.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures he has regarding the level of emigration from Scotland.

Mr. Ross: I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave the hon. Members for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on 4th December.—[Vol. 755, c. 239.]

Mr. Dewar: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the figures, representing as they do the first drop in the net immigration loss since the war, demonstrate a remarkable break through, and confirm the very optimistic trends which were discovered by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) recently in its survey of long-term unemployment?

Mr. Ross: The figures are indeed a very welcome change, although we are not complacent about them. When one breaks them un one discovers a very dramatic change, which I think is a measure of the success of our policies on drift south, which used to worry us. There is still a considerable headache over emigration overseas, but that is not confined to this part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it that we shall not congratulate him for making, with his colleagues, England so unattractive under Socialism that nobody from Scotland wants to go there? Will he bear in mind that the level of emigration overseas is now running at 2½ times its level at the beginning of the decade and that the people concerned, unlike those who go south, are lost to Scotland for good?

Mr. Ross: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not congratulate me—the shock would have been too much for me.

Divorce Law Reform

Mr. Dewar: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy on divorce law reform in Scotland, and in particular on


the Scottish Law Commission's proposals contained in Command Paper No. 3256.

Mr. Ross: This has never been thought a suitable subject for Government legislation. If, however, any hon. Member wished to introduce a Bill based on the Scottish Law Commission's Report the Government would be willing to help with the drafting.

Mr. Dewar: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very unsatisfactory, if the Private Member's Bill which has already been brought forward is enacted for England, that we in Scotland shall have to wait until an hon. Member favourably disposed to such legislation is fortunate enough to be successful in the Private Members' Ballot? That will result in a long time lag, and once again Scotland will look as though it is taking second place in the legislative train.

Mr. Ross: That is not always true. Scotland sometimes takes the lead, both through the Government and through Private Members' Bills. In this case, it is a matter of the luck of the draw and willingness of hon. Members to sponsor particular Bills.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise that in addition to drafting assistance he will give Government time in the Scottish Grand Committee for such a Bill?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman probably knows better than anyone that it is not a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland. The question of Government time is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

The Borders (Development)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date he will publish the report commissioned by his Department from Edinburgh University on development in the Borders.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The complete report is not yet available for printing, but my right hon. Friend hopes to publish it early in the new year.

Mr. Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer will be received with satisfaction, since there has

been great dissatisfaction at the delay and now we have a definite date? What steps is the Minister taking, particularly following the article in this morning's Scotsman, to keep together this excellent planning research team at Edinburgh University to make use of it for Scotland as a whole?

Dr. Mabon: I read the article, and I am naturally concerned, as is my right hon. Friend, that an excellent team doing such work should face difficulties. There is always a problem of continuity with such teams. They have other work to do—certain other work was mentioned in the article—and there is a limit to the number of Government research projects that can be carried out. I cannot be specific, and can only say that my right hon. Friend is aware of the problem.

Electricity (Installation Grants)

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland. in view of the fact that grants for installing electricity in a dwellinghouse are available only to crofters and cottars as distinct from owner-occupiers, if he will amend the regulations in order to make owner-occupiers of the same status as crofters eligible for those grants.

Mr. Buchan: No, Sir. These grants are available to crofters as part of the general scheme of crofter housing grants provided under the 1955 Act because of the particular circumstances of crofting tenure. It would not be appropriate to extend them to owner-occupiers.

Mr. Mackenzie: In thanking the Under-Secretary for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that owner-occupiers of similar economic status qualify for practically all the other grants? In that case, will he not look again at the problem to remove this anomaly?

Mr. Buchan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is, however, the difference that the crofter gets better housing grants, because he is in the rather unique position that, while still a tenant, he has to find the capital for his house. The owner-occupier, however, like any other owner-occupier, has available to him important grants which, in certain circumstances, could be made available, for example, for the installation of electricity.

Mr. James Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are more smallholdings or crofts in Aberdeenshire than in any of seven crafting counties?

Mr. Buchan: I am aware of that. It does not, however, affect the statutory position as I have described it.

Derelict Sites (Clearance)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will indicate the progress made in the clearance of derelict sites in the last three years as compared with progress in the years 1961–62 to 1963–64.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: During the last three years 47 schemes have been completed, at a cost of £1·3 million. From 1961–62 to 1963–64 only 16 schemes were completed, at a cost of £166,000.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that those figures reveal an important improvement in the situation, but can he tell the House the total size of the problem and what the Government are doing to spur on the laggard authorities in this matter?

Dr. Mabon: It is difficult to know precisely the size of problem that we are facing. My right hon. Friend decided early on that it was far better to try to get a list of such schemes by different authorities and urge them to get ahead faster. We can reasonably say that since we have done ten times better than the previous Administration over a comparable period, we are entitled to consider that we have done reasonably well, although we know that we have a lot more to do and we are urging local authorities to go faster than they have done so far.

Mr. Noble: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that I am delighted that the local authorities have done so much better? Is it not the local authorities rather than the Government?

Dr. Mabon: The fact is that we have changed the Statute in several ways, in which I will not go into now. Local authorities get 85 per cent. grants on many of these schemes, which is a tremendous incentive. Fife has done exceptionally well and I would wish other counties to emulate Fife in its efforts so far.

National Health Service

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he intends to take to reorganise the National Health Service.

Mr. Millan: I would refer to the Answer my right hon. Friend gave on 7th November to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele).—[Vol. 753, c. 102.]

Mr. Hamilton: I have read that reply, which refers to purely administrative matters, which, of course, are important. Is there any intention, either in the immediate future or in the long term, to consider the whole financial structure of the services against the administration?

Mr. Millan: No. The financing of the service is a matter which can be considered at any time, but the review in question is concerned, as my hon. Friend has said, with the administration of the service.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the Minister aware that in Glasgow in particular, there is a desperate shortage of hospital beds and urgent cases are having to be turned away? Is there anything which can be done in this problem in the short term, apart from the long-term building programme?

Mr. Millan: I am aware that there is a shortage of hospital beds, but I would not call it desperate. I am not aware that acute cases are being turned away from hospitals.

Scottish Economy (White Paper)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland by what year the objectives laid down in the White Paper, The Scottish Economy, 1965–70, Command Paper No. 2864, will be achieved.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the relationship of the White Paper on the Scottish Economy of January, 1966, to the present economic situation in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: I have stated on a number of occasions my belief that the broad strategy and objectives of the White


Paper on the Scottish Economy are right. I still maintain this view. Although economic events since the White Paper was published will delay the rate of achievement then envisaged, the Government's regional policies are setting new trends in development and are already producing significant results in new growth.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Secretary of State keeps telling us that these objectives take longer to achieve. Does devaluation and the consequent Government cuts mean that they will take longer still? Does Socialist Government always mean for Scotland prosperity tomorrow and never today?

Mr. Ross: I wish that the hon. Member would give us some constructive suggestions now and again instead of repeating slogans. Anyone who has been reading responsible journals over the past week will have noted the acclaim which has been given to the success of the Government's policies.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what way, for example, the proposals of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will not be almost disastrous for the development of the Scottish economy?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman and a lot of his friends have been preaching woe for so long that they are disappointed when improvements are made in transport or anything else. The hon. Gentleman was not justified in the remark which he has just made.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that, irrespective of whether he thinks that it is a matter of woe, transport is of the first importance in many parts of Scotland's economy? While it may be reasonable to impose higher charges on lorries in the South of England, where alternative transport is available, it does not make sense in the North of Scotland, where there is none.

Mr. Ross: I would have been delighted to answer a Question on transport from the right hon. Gentleman if he had put it down.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the devaluation

proposals will give enormous impetus to Scottish exports, in which the record is already impressive?

Mr. Ross: That is true. It is what some of the responsible journals have been saying. If hon. Members go among the firms in their constituences, many of them will already notice the considerable difference in the possibilities of obtaining export orders.

Mr. G. Campbell: Have not those responsible journals indicated that it is the work of some years ago which is helping the current improvement in the industrial situation? On the White Paper, does the Secretary of State in particular still expect in manufacturing industry an annual growth of output of 4·4 per cent. as forecast on page 7?

Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Member that the improvements which have been made in the past two years have had a lot to do with the better performance, of Scottish industry and the changing pattern of Scottish industry. We hope to achieve the highest possible increase in manufacturing industry.

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a progress report on Command Paper No. 2864, The Scottish Economy 1965–70.

Mr. Ross: I have nothing meantime to add to the reply I gave on this matter to the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) on 25th October.—[Vol. 751, c. 1725.]

Mr. MacArthur: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since this discredited White Paper was published Scotland has suffered from the Selective Employment Tax, from the proposal to increase transport charges, from a drop in employment for the breadwinner, from devaluation, from forthcoming cuts in expenditure and from the collapse of the National Plan on which the whole of the Scottish proposal was based? Would he not agree that the time has come for a complete review of the White Paper?

Mr. Ross: I could give a catalogue of the advantages which have come to Scotland from, for instance, the S.E.T. premiums and the regional employment premium. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would address himself to the facts of his


Question. We have discussed the Scottish economy in the House and in the Scottish Grand Committee. I assure him that I do not take as gloomy a view of the future of Scotland as he obviously does.

Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. Is not the purpose of a Question to ask for information and not to give it?

Mr. Speaker: I had an idea that that was part of the object of Question Time.

Government Offices (Siting)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps, in the interests of regional development, to site Government offices and agencies in towns outside the central belt.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: It is the Government's policy to disperse office employment in the public sector wherever practicable in the interests of balanced regional development. The interests of areas outside central Scotland are taken into account when applying this policy to individual cases.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's record in bringing new Government offices to Scotland is not very great? Will he now perhaps retrieve his Government's reputation by getting the headquarters of the Meat and Livestock Commission to Scotland, and in particular to a livestock area such as the North-East of Scotland?

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Member knows that I cannot commit the Government on that. There are other hon. Members representing constituencies outside the central belt of Scotland who are interested in precisely the same headquarters. One headquarters which we have set up has been that of the Highlands and Islands Board, and there is the Crofters Commission. As the hon. Member may know, it is not in Wales, but in Inverness. The Livestock Commission is under consideration, together with the Scottish Countryside Commission. The hon. Member has certainly written to us about this matter and is right in raising it.

Mr. Stodart: Can the Under-Secretary say that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not done a deal with his right hon. Friend the Minister of

Agriculture and undertaken not to press for the Livestock Commission, with a lot of jobs not going to Scotland, provided that he is given the facilities to introduce legislation to give satisfaction to some of his pettifogging legal friends behind him? Is not this a rather squalid man⅓uvre?

Dr. Mabon: I must deny that absolutely. That is really a squalid question.

Local Authority Houses (Cost)

Mr. Tom McMillan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average cost to local authorities of a three-, four-, and five-apartment house, and the cost of similar houses in England.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: The averages for Scotland as a whole are about £3,800, £4,000, and £4,600, respectively, inclusive of land, site preparation and fees. Direct comparison with costs in England is impossible because house types and site conditions differ widely in the two countries.

Mr. McMillan: In view of that Answer, does not my hon. Friend agree that closer examination should take place to find out what the difference is?

Dr. Mabon: I accept that. The average tender cost for two-storey three-bed-roomed local authority houses approved in England and Wales, but excluding London, in 1966 was £2,782, to which, of course, must be added the cost of land, which differs in England and Wales, roads, sewers and professional fees and so on. My hon. Friend will appreciate the difficulties of a direct comparison. This is part of the inquiry we are conducting.

Forestry Training Centres

Mr. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for setting up forestry training centres in Scotland, in view of the Government's announced intention to expand the planting programme of the Forestry Commission.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am satisfied that the facilities provided by the Forestry Commission for its own workers will be adequate to meet the needs of the new public planting programme.

Mr. Baker: Does not the hon. Gentleman realize that, apart from the Forestry Commission training centres and universities, there is no adequate training in forestry for private woodland owners' employees? Will he reconsider this matter and perhaps set up a training establishment in the north-ease of Scotland?

Dr. Mabon: I am aware of the situation. This is a matter for the Agriculture, Horticulture and Forestry Training Board, which is now discussing the setting up of agricultural and forestry training centres for workers who are not within the Forestry Commission's activities but are dealing with private land. This perhaps is the confusion which has arisen and the position is still being considered by the Training Board. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour a further Question about that.

Wood Pigeons

Mr. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has to report on research into the destruction of wood pigeons; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Buchan: Following research and experiments undertaken by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the use of stupefying baits against wood pigeons, which have achieved encouraging results, arrangements are being made to hold a field trial in Scotland in the spring of 1968. It is proposed to license selected farmers to carry out the operations themselves under the general supervision of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.

Mr. Baker: I welcome that reply. Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the areas of the North-East of Scotland will be allocated a certain degree of bait because of the prevalence of the problem, particularly in Banff?

Mr. Buchan: We are considering a trial in spring, 1968. I cannot yet say where it will be. Other areas are interested—for example, the Borders. But, of course, wherever it is held, if the results are successful we shall not deprive the hon. Gentleman's constituency of its advantages.

Employment

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct the Scottish Economic Planning Council to conduct an investigation into the changes in the number of persons in employment in Scotland since June, 1964.

Mr. Ross: No special investigation is necessary. The Scottish Economic Planning Council receives at its meetings reports on changes in employment in Scotland, and comprehensive tables of employment by industries are published twice yearly in the Digest of Scottish Statistics.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it not the case that the number of persons in employment in Scotland today is substantially lower than it was when the right hon. Gentleman took office? Are we to take this as showing how Scotland goes with Labour or how Labour Government works in Scotland?

Mr. Ross: The latest figures given in the digest to which I referred showed, for the period 1964–66, a net change of plus 21,000. Admittedly, it showed a loss in respect of male employment but an increase in respect of female employment.

Mr. Lawson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the native Scottish business man has some responsibility for the state of affairs in Scotland? Will he do something to stimulate some enterprise among native Scottish business men who have been letting the country down for so long?

Mr. Ross: This is one of the things we have been doing, and one of the results of the work of the Economic Planning Council and of the consultative groups is that they are involving people in the localities with the Government's plans, and this is not without success. More and more people are taking an interest in what they can do for themselves with the aid available from the Government in improving the situation of industry in Scotland.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the misleading nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should give notice of his intention in the conventional way.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Question No. 23.

Mr. Hannan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood you to ask the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) to withdraw his remark.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question Time is getting on. I asked the hon. Member for South Angus to give notice in the conventional way.

Land (Comprehensive Development)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has received from the Highlands and Islands Development Board for the comprehensive development of land; and what reply he has sent.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: None, Sir, but I understand that the Board has a number of such developments under consideration.

Mr. Maclennan: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is an extremely disappointing reply? This tardiness by the Board is entirely regrettable.

Dr. Mabon: I, too, am sorry that we do not have some of the reports on matters which have been going on for some time. However, I sympathise with the heavy pressure of work on the Board. It appointed a land development officer on 1st August and is conducting research into land use for development in the Isle of Mull, Glencoe, the Moray Firth and Strath Kildonan, in which my hon. Friend is, I know, personally interested.

Highlands and Islands (Fishing Development Scheme)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to extend the Highlands and Islands Fisheries Training Scheme.

Mr. Buchan: On 16th November, my right hon. Friend approved an extension by a further 10 boats of the Highlands and Islands Development Board Fishing Development Scheme, which is specially designed primarily to help new entrants.

Mr. Maclennan: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in contrast with the previous Answer, this is an extremely welcome reply and demonstrates the recognition by the Government of the important place fishing has to play in the development of the Highland economy?

Mr. Buchan: I am obliged for the, as always, courteous response of my hon. Friend.

Hill Farming Grants

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek to obtain the repayment of hill farming grants paid in respect of land which is subsequently afforested.

Mr. Buchan: My right hon. Friend has no power to recover hill farming grants just because land is subsequently afforested.

Mr. Brewis: Is not one of the elements in the problem the unprofitability of hill farming, which makes people want to afforestate the land? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will at any rate try to do something for hill farmers in the new Price Review?

Mr. Buchan: I am not sure of the implication of the word "try". I have been trying hard for the past year, as the hill sheep farmers recognise. As a result, a number of new schemes and proposals have been brought in. The farmers know that as well. The hon. Gentleman will recognise the progress this year as compared with last, when we had real difficulties, but if he says that we still have further to go then, of course, I agree.

Aluminium Smelting Plant (Sites)

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Highland Development Board's part in examining the suitability of the Invergordon area as a site for an aluminium smelting plant.

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the siting of an aluminium smelter in Scotland.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps the Scottish Economic Planning Board is


taking to facilitate the siting of an aluminium smelter in Scotland.

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received the report from the Highland Development Board on the suitability of the Cromarty Firth area as a site for a smelting plant.

Mr. Ross: The Government's announcement of 4th October made clear that the first step was for the aluminium companies, after discussion with the electricity generating boards, to put forward proposals based on sites of their own selection within development areas. Certain of these companies have shown interest in Scottish locations, and have been given all possible help in their inquiries by Government Departments, local authorities and, where appropriate, the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
The Board had made investigations into the possible development of power-intensive industries, including aluminium smelting, in the Moray Firth area and had had discussions on the subject with industrial concerns and other bodies. It formally submitted the results of its investigations to me last June.

Mr. Brewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will have the wholehearted support of all hon. Members on this side of the House for his efforts to get the aluminium smelter in the Invergordon area or any other part of Scotland? Will he take this opportunity to say whether the reports that this project is being shelved for the time being are true or not?

Mr. Ross: Such reports have not reached me. I am sure that I have the support of all Scottish Members of this House and not only on one side in wishing success in these efforts.

Mr. Monro: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all Scotland is looking to him to succeed in bringing the smelter to Scotland and that we wish him every success?

Mr. Ross: I thank the hon. Gentleman but, of course, it depends first of all on the aluminium smelter companies themselves.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Could not the price of electricity in Scotland be a difficulty? Has the C.E.G.B. given a firm estimate and have the Scottish boards been able to give a firm estimate? Could the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a Treasury or Government guarantee of their estimate?

Mr. Ross: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not jump too many steps. There have been negotiations between the companies and the C.E.G.B. and the Scottish boards. I know of no difficulty which has arisen especially in relation to the Scottish boards, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not start up that one.

Mr. G. Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that all concerned are fully aware of the particular advantages of the Invergordon area as a site, including the deep harbour and suitable adjacent land?

Mr. Ross: It was one of the benefits of the work done earlier by the Highlands and Islands Board that it was in a position to present these advantages clearly. We and the local authorities have tried to make available all the information about the areas in which interest has been shown.

Mr. Noble: I entirely accept that this is partly and perhaps importantly a matter for the companies themselves. As I understand the position, two of the companies have expressed a real interest in and, indeed, a preference for Scottish sites. Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in touch with those companies and then make certain that the Government do not fail in any way, but help them in their preferred choice?

Mr. Ross: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have been in touch all through. More than two companies have shown an interest in Scotland. The Scottish Office has not lost sight of the importance of these developments to Scotland.

Crime

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to combat the rising crime wave in Scotland.

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of the State for Scotland, in view of the


observations of judges of the High Court in Scotland in recent cases, what measures he intends to take to deal with the rapid increase in the use of lethal weapons.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to Lord Cameron's recommendations in the High Court on the need for more adequate protection of the community against physical attack, and interference with their lawful activities; and what steps he proposes taking to ensure their greater safety.

Mr. Buchan: I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to the Answer I gave on 29th November to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor).—[Vol. 755, c.106–71]

Mr. Monro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the demand by the Scottish public that the Secretary of State should take drastic action against thugs? When will he do something about it?

Mr. Buchan: We are doing a great deal about it. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the specific question, which is a request by Glasgow magistrates and police for extended powers of arrest. There is a recognition everywhere of the gravity of this problem, but a recognition of the gravity of the problem should not lead us to believe that there is any easy panacea to solve it, and it is a solution with which I am concerned.

Mr. Galbraith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that distinguished judges of the High Court have said that something ought to be done? Instead of the pious words which we get from the Government, will he get a move on and see that the magistrates in Glasgow are given the powers for which they have rightly asked?

Mr. Buchan: If the hon. Gentleman had studied the subject a little more closely, including the remarks attributed to the learned judge, he would have realised that there were two different things. The judge had been referring to an extremely serious case in the High Court at Edinburgh. The issue which we discussed with the magistrates related to the carrying of offensive weapons.

Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend assure us that the recommendations which the Glasgow magistrates may ultimately make, if they are not in his hands now, will have his sympathetic support?

Mr. Buchan: For some time my right hon. Friend and I have been giving sympathetic consideration to the request for extended powers of arrest for the carrying of offensive weapons The request has been in our hands for some time. The problem is not just to recognise that we are facing a difficult problem but to decide whether this is the best method of dealing with it.

Sir M. Galpern: Is not my hon. Friend aware that in recent years many investigations and surveys have been undertaken, conclusions reached and recommendations made, and that this new proposal is merely a delaying exercise in face of a situation which requires urgent action?

Mr. Buchan: I do not follow the drift of that argument; the end seemed to contradict the beginning. I am aware of most of the surveys of recent years. They all show one thing—that there is no easy panacea and that we are dealing not only with a very important problem of crime, but with a deep-seated social problem. We have to deal with it in that way as well as dealing with this request. For example, we have to ask ourselves about the effect on the relationship between the police and the community, a very important question which could be affected by every other decision.

Mrs. Ewing: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the best step which he could take to combat the rising crime wave' would be to seek to get the police force up to strength—it is now 984 men short and housing is the great factor in attracting men into the police service?

Mr. Buchan: I am well aware of that. There is a later Question on that subject.

Mr. Noble: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that, although this is a difficult problem, it contains urgent factors which make it absolutely necessary for the Government to take, perhaps short-term, but decisive action?

Mr. Buchan: It is because of our recognition of that that my right hon.


Friend has asked me to accept special responsibility in this matter. As the right hon. Gentleman should know, starting this Friday we are having discussions precisely around these points and going even more deeply into the problem with the Glasgow magistrates and police.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that the problem goes much further than the City of Glasgow and that it is well known that in industrial thoroughfares criminals convicted of violence are strutting about with hatchets in their pockets? Would he not agree that the intentions of these people are not very honourable? Why should not the police have powers to deal with the situation?

Mr. Buchan: The police have full powers to deal with this situation.

Mr. Dempsey: They have not.

Mr. Buchan: The police have full and absolute powers to deal with this situation.

Mr. Dempsey: No.

Mr. Buchan: I do not know how often I have to repeat it, but it is a matter of fact that the legislation of 1953 gives the police full and absolute power to arrest when they have reasonable cause to believe that these weapons may be used. I assure my hon. Friend that if he tries to go along Sauchiehall Street with a hatchet, he will find out whether we have these powers.

Mr. Monro: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. MacArthur: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to provide further assistance to the police so as to increase the crime detection rate.

Mr. Buchan: Crime detection is an operational matter which is the responsibility of individual chief constables. Two proposals that should help have recently been approved by the Police Advisory Board for Scotland, namely, the setting up of a Scottish Crime Squad and the establishment of a National Forensic Science Laboratory.

Mr. MacArthur: Would the hon. Gentleman give further and more serious thought to the proposal that the police should have powers to search people suspected of carrying offensive weapons, thus extending the power which they have already in relation to firearms? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that for every 37 criminals caught 63 go scot-free? Would he agree that this suggested power would help to nip crime in the bud.

Mr. Buchan: That has absolutely nothing to do with the Question. I have been asked about detection rates. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a new proposition about powers of search, which have not been asked for by the Glasgow police, I shall be willing to answer his question.

Mr. Willis: Would my hon. Friend say to what extent the traffic warden system has been extended and traffic duties have been taken over by traffic wardens to enable more police to attend to the job of crime detection? This seems a way of enabling more men to be on the job.

Mr. Buchan: The system has been extended considerably especially in the Glasgow area. I am considering sympathetically a fresh request for 100 additional traffic wardens in Glasgow. The system is being extended elsewhere. It will be of immense assistance in releasing the police for other duties.

Birsay Committee

Mr. Wright: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to recommend the application to the Highlands and Islands of the proposals of the Birsay Committee.

Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend has invited the observations of the medical profession and other bodies on the Birsay Report and proposes to consider their views before making up his mind about the Committee's major recommendations. Legislation now before the House does, however, give effect to two of the Committee's suggestions.

Mr. Wright: Is the Secretary of State including in his considerations the methods of remuneration for general practitioners in the Highlands and Islands?

Mr. Millan: Yes. That is one of the things being considered. We are meeting representatives of the general medical practitioners next week to discuss a number of matters, and that will probably be included.

Mr. Grimond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as well as the medical profession there is the public whom it serves to be considered and that there are certain objections from certain areas in the Highlands and Islands to certain suggestions in the Report of this Committee? Will he give an assurance that those objections will be considered? Will any further opportunity be given to the public as well as to medical profession to express views on this Report?

Mr. Millan: The public has already expressed its views about these matters. At the moment, the Secretary of State has no proposals to withdraw services, but all the matters which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned will certainly be taken into account.

Severely Handicapped Children

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures are now in force for assisting voluntary organisations to provide daytime training for those severely handicapped children for whom education authorities make no provision.

Mr. Millan: The councils of counties and large burghs in Scotland have power to assist voluntary organisations for this purpose. I understand that most of the 10 centres provided by voluntary bodies receive help from local authorities, mainly in the form of accommodation and equipment.

Mr. Lawson: Is my hon. Friend aware that substantial assistance might be given through the Health Service, for example? Is he aware that some local authorities are much more tardy than others and that his Department could do a great deal to stimulate those authorities into taking active steps to assist this invaluable work?

Mr. Millan: We do all we can to encourage authorities to make this kind of provision, but the ultimate responsibility rests with the authorities. If my hon. Friend has any particular local problem in mind, I should be glad to look at it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the particular difficulties of smaller local authorities, especially in rural areas? Will he do all he can to give special help to them and perhaps use his own influence to help with liaison with neighbouring larger authorities which have the facilities to help these children?

Mr. Millan: Some smaller authorities are very much better than larger authorities in this kind of provision.

Strathclyde General Hospital, Motherwell

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is expected that a start will be made with the building of the Strathclyde General Hospital, Motherwell.

Mr. Millan: I am sorry that a starting date for this scheme cannot yet be given. It was not included for start in the five-year period covered by the review of the Hospital Plan for Scotland, and my right hon. Friend is not yet ready to announce starting dates for additional projects.

Mr. Lawson: Is my hon. Friend aware that this starting date has been bandied about for years? Would he bear in mind that the site itself would take a very considerable amount of preparation and that he might get down to the business of preparing the site even if he is not prepared to begin to erect the building?

Mr. Millan: I do not think that I have any proposals at the moment for giving a date for this particular project. As I have said, it was not included in the five-year period and at present we are not announcing starting dates for any additional projects.

Town and Country Planning (Legislation)

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why a Bill on town and country planning procedures in Scotland is not to be introduced in this Session, in view of the fact that there is to be a Bill for England and Wales.

Earl of Dalkeith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to introduce legislation to make further


improvements in the statutory protection afforded to buildings of special historic or architectural interest in accordance with the undertaking given in paragraph 47 of the Town and Country Planning White Paper, Command Paper No. 3333, dated June, 1967.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: in this case and in this complicated field there are clear advantages in introducing separate Scottish legislation. The Bill which is in preparation for next Session will include provisions on the lines indicated in paragraph 47 of the White Paper.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I do not mind separate legislation? It is probably a good thing. In the forthcoming Bill, will he make sure that there is adequate provision and regulations about notifications because often buildings are pulled down or other buildings are erected and the neighbours and people round about do not know about it and they should have proper advance information?

Dr. Mabon: I cannot recollect whether the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter with me before, but I will certainly look into the point and see whether there are provisions along the lines which he has suggested and, if not, I will write to him well in advance. The local authorities have been consulted about this and they accept that, with the recent Countryside (Scotland) Act, the Water (Scotland) Act and our proposals on sewerage, it is reasonable that we should wait one year before we introduce the planning Bill, which is so important and which we all recognise will be a major step forward in planning.

Earl of Dalkeith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the preservation measures in the planning Bill are a matter of very great urgency? Many buildings could possibly be destroyed in the intervening period and it is too long to wait until next Session. Therefore, would he allow a private Member to introduce the Bill in order to help the Scottish Office out of the timetable difficulties?

Dr. Mabon: I always admire the hon. Gentleman's courage and audacity, but it would be an enormous Bill and it would be a very difficult Bill for a private Member. Local authorities would not like a Bill to be introduced in that way because it would involve the complete machinery

of government in supporting the Member concerned. The hon. Gentleman has a very fair point. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about abortion"?] There is more involved in planning than abortion. I have to answer the question in relation to historic buildings On the second point, we recently sent out a circular under the Civic Amenities Act urging authorities to use their existing powers along the lines that the hon. Gentleman suggests. We will streamline the legislation when we have the new planning Bill.

Houses (Completions)

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated number of houses to be completed in 1967; and how many are for local authorities, Scottish special housing associations, new own corporations, and owner-occupation, respectively.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I cannot add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on 29th November.—[Vol. 755, c. 110.]

Mr. Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a wide variation in the proportion of owner-occupation to council houses within certain local authorities? For instance, in Glasgow there is no spare land to enable people to indulge in the more lucrative practice of owner-occupation. Would my hon. Friend bear that in mind when considering the rate support grant allocation?

Dr. Mabon: I do not see the relevance of the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The working party, which we established with the private builders, has been able to identify a number of areas suitable for private building in Scotland, and consultations are going on with local authorities asking them to help, as the White Paper in 1966 asked, to find land where owner-occupation could take place alongside an expanded local authority programme.

Mr. David Steel: Would the hon. Gentleman continue his excellent series of visits to housing authorities throughout Scotland by visiting those county councils which admittedly have small housing programmes?

Dr. Mabon: Yes. I should be very happy to accept an invitation to the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Police

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the authorised establishment of the police force and the actual number in post; and what percentage of the difference relates to Glasgow.

Mr. Buchan: On 31st October, 1967, the authorised establishment of all Scottish forces was 11,203 and the strength 10,219; 48 per cent. of the difference between the two figures related to Glasgow.

Mr. Brown: It is impossible for me to work that out as quickly as I should like, but I understand that under-manning in Glasgow is over 400. Would my hon. Friend accept that we are delighted that the Under-Secretary of State is to make a personal visit to Glasgow to examine some of the problems which have been raised recently? Would he consider seriously the possibility of an under-manning allowance for Glasgow police in view of the excessive overtime being worked, which is bad for morale?

Mr. Buchan: I am sorry if the form of my hon. Friend's Question led us to give a difficult mathematical answer. There is a shortage of 473 men. On the second point, it is a bit difficult to judge the effect of some of the steps which have been taken recently, such as the alteration in physical requirements. The deficiency allowance is payable only if there is a 25 per cent. undermanning. We are not near that position yet. However, I have no doubt that this will be among the subjects which will be discussed in what now appears to be a famous meeting which will take place this coming Friday.

House Rents

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to apply the fair rent machinery contained in the 1965 Act to houses which still remain controlled under the Rent Act, 1957.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans for extending rent regulation to controlled houses.

Mr. Galbraith: How much longer is the hon. Member going to act like an ostrich? Surely it is clear that if some rents are too high other may be too low? It is impossible to deal with this problem if there is not enough money coming in to keep property repaired. Will not the hon. Gentleman consider the question from a practical point of view instead of a doctrinaire one?

Dr. Mabon: That is not a fair comment. We are dealing with 8,000 applications under the present Act, which was passed in 1965. We are trying to regroup our rent offices in order to get a balance, and so that they work to full capacity. We do not want more civil servants. I thought that both sides of the House were agreed on that. If so, we must wait until we can process the present work before we go on to the later stages.

Mr. Dewar: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the objection is only to the mechanical difficulty of dealing with cases that there is no objection in principle to the extension?

Dr. Mabon: I am glad to confirm that, but there are other factors which influence the situation, depending on the timing. It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to criticise us for what they did not do in 15 years.

BILL PRESENTED

GAMING ESTABLISHMENTS

Bill to amend the law of gaming and to establish a board for the control of gaming establishments and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Rees-Davies; read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

RAILWAYS (DISPUTE)

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. May I ask whether you have been informed that we are to be given any statement on the settlement of the railway dispute, Mr. Speaker? We have had many statements about the dispute, but when it is settled we get none.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. I have had no communication on this matter.

PROCEDURE

Mr. Speaker: Before we open the debate, may I announce that I have selected all the Amendments on the Order Paper except that to Standing Order No. 5, in the name of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page).

Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills)

3.34 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills) be amended as follows: Line 1, leave out 'a bill for imposing taxes or'.
This is the most important of the changes in our procedure which we are suggesting that the House should adopt this Session. I am well aware that we have mulled this over many times before, so I shall not repeat all the arguments which we had throughout the year, and also in the general debate. But I thought that it might be useful if I read very carefully all the objections made both in the debate on the Loyal Address and in the general debate, and sought as far as I could to meet and answer them.
Eight right hon. and hon. Members criticised the proposal to send the Finance Bill upstairs. I am aware that in doing this I am changing very much the atmosphere that we had in the previous debate, when we were discussing our ideas generally, and were voting on a whole series of Motions mainly designed to assist the House, the Opposition and individual back benchers.
One example of the changes we introduced occurred yesterday, in connection with Standing Order No. 9, and I think that the House would regard what happened yesterday as a great success. It was a proof that we could stage quickly, with little notice, a topical debate on a subject which needed to be debated. I believe that our new Standing Order added something—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman should not open the debate too widely.

Mr. Crossman: No, Mr. Speaker. I was merely about to contrast the general assent there was in the House during the

previous debate and the much sharper criticisms which will come.

Mr. J. T. Price: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to interpose one slight doubt about the claims that he is making? It is true that the very topical debate which was in everybody's mind was staged at short notice, but only at the expense of deferring Orders of the Day already on the Order Paper in such a way that the next debate ran after 6 o'clock this morning. I do not regard that as progress, even if my right hon. Friend does.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman may now understand what I meant when I said that he should not open the debate too widely.

Mr. Crossman: I take your warning, Mr. Speaker. I should like, however, to emphasise that in moving this Motion we cannot hope to have the same sort of debate that we had last time, in terms of a consensus of opinion.
In the Select Committee on Procedure a consensus was achieved with some difficulty about an experiment for one Session. Even on that—although I tried to persuade the House—great doubts were felt, especially by the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). It was after that that we reverted to our previous determination and decided to recommend that the House should do what many of us have thought was the right thing to do to achieve a solution, namely, to move the Committee stage of the Finance Bill upstairs.
I am aware that this is not a new proposal. This has been suggested and fought over constantly. The striking fact is that the time taken over the Committee stage of the Finance Bill has been steadily increasing. The reason was succinctly given by Lord Butler in his memorandum. I shall not quote his arguments, but I would like to read the paragraph in which he said:
It ought, in this context, to be noted that there has been a sharp increase in recent years in the amount of time taken over the Committee stage of the Bill. The figures given in Annex II show that although Finance Bills have not, on average, increased in length, the Committee stage now requires eight to ten days as compared with four or five days before 1951. As an illustration, the 1947 Bill was nearly twice as long as the 1958 Bill but only took half the time in Committee. In


so far as this reflects a change in the habits or traditions of the House, at least a partial remedy lies in the hands of Members themselves. Nevertheless it would be optimistic to suppose that the time spent on debating the Finance Bill is likely to be reduced substantially and it is therefore worth considering how the procedure might be improved.
Whatever were the propositions he put forward, his analysis is undoubtedly correct.
I have had a calculation made and it is true that during the 1950s and 1960s the average time spent on the Finance Bill has just about doubled. A careful study makes it clear that this is not due to the increasing complexity or length of the Bill. It is a fact that we are spending, on average, double the time that we used to spend on the Finance Bill, and this has upset the balance of our timetable and produced the chronic annual log jam which causes a string of all-night or late-night sittings.
I thought that in connection with this point I ought to deal with the first of the objections made by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West. In the debate on the Address he said:
The reason we are doing this is so that we can go to bed earlier. This comes quite clearly from the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure. In my view, the occupation of government is not suitable for office hours. I do not think so. Perhaps hon. Members will remember what Harry Truman once said, 'If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen'."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 853.]
I reflected on this and wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman was being fair or very acute in analysing the motives of those who put this suggestion forward, in saying that they are the kind of Members who cannot take it, and that their sole motive was to serve the convenience of Members who wanted to stay in bed. I think that that was attributing unworthy motives to those who put this suggestion forward.
I agree that it will relieve considerably the number of all-night and late-night sittings in the summer, but there are hon. Members who believe that it is not good to have to debate the details of a Finance Bill at 5 o'clock in the morning. It does not do good, and it is a mistake for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that this is a matter between those, like himself, who stay up all night—as, no doubt, he

did last night—and some hon. Members on this side of the House. Last night, a number of hon. Members on this side were here all night, and the number of those opposite was, I believe, under seven by the end of the night. So I would not say that this was a serious objection.
I therefore turn to the first serious objection, that of the right hon. and learned Member for the Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), of the right hon. Members for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and Flint, West (Mr. Birch) and of the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover)—what I would call the constitutional objection. They said that there was a constitutional reason why the Finance Bill should be taken on the Floor and not upstairs.
I have considered this, and this is one thing which one cannot say after studying which Bills go upstairs and which are considered here. Going upstairs is a modern innovation, anyway. The other place still does not yet have a Committee system of this kind. Moreover, now that it has developed in this Chamber, it would be difficult to classify Bills except by the only classification which I know, those which are needed at such short notice that there is no time to send them upstairs for the normal Standing Committee scrutiny.
We ought to consider the view that Bills are better studied in Committee if they go upstairs. This is the big discovery of the post-war period, that our method of studying Bills requires a period when, instead of large numbers of hon. Members discussing it together here, we deliberately send it somewhere else, to another atmosphere, an area in which a small number of people can consider it Clause by Clause and line by line.
Experience has shown that it does not matter how important the Bill. Indeed, the more important a Bill the more it needs a Committee period upstairs. No hon. Member opposite will say that the Transport Bill of this Session is not important. It will go upstairs, but who would say that it would improve the quality of the Committee work if it were taken on the Floor? Who denies that the Steel Bill was better studied in Committee and, I believe, could have been even better studied with a timetable—but we will come to that later.
Who any longer pretends that we improve the quality of scrutiny by keeping a Bill on the Floor? This is why Bills of the greatest importance go upstairs, as do a number of constitutional Bills. The only group of Bills which I can think of which stay here, as I said, are those which, like the Bill last night, must be operational in a matter of weeks, and so we push them through a Committee stage on the Floor, knowing that, if they had gone upstairs, they would have gained something with that smaller number and not lost—

Mr. John Peyton: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to establish a new precedent here? All borrowing powers Bills, as far as I am aware, have always been taken on the Floor of the House and never sent to Standing Committee.

Mr. Crossman: I am only saying that we cannot make the constitutional point here. The point was that there was some special constitutional reason for a Bill not going upstairs. I shall be asked whether this is not unique in other ways, and whether, for these reasons, and because of its financial importance, it should not be kept here, because the House traditionally deals with finance.
This view has become increasingly out of date. If we judge by the serious question whether we want to improve the quality of discussion, there can be no question but that the Bill should go upstairs, provided that we ensure that the right of the individual back bencher to debate it in full, to discuss it in principle and in detail on the Floor is retained. Everyone who wants to send the Committee stage upstairs is aware that we have to ensure that we get adequate discussion in the other stages.
This brings me to a statement of the right hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) that he thought Lord Butler had recommended this because he had forgotten the interests of back benchers. There is no other part of our legislation, I believe, in which the back bencher has more facility for discussion than the Budget and the Finance Bill. He has four days on the Budget plus the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, and will in future, after the Bill returns from Committee, have a much enlarged Report stage in which he can deal in detail with the Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman's objection about Amendments is a detail about ensuring discussion on Report. This is not a suggestion that we are denying hon. Members the opportunities for debate. Debates are there and will be maintained. We should remember, when one rightly stresses the number of back benchers who like to and who do attend, and who are, therefore, affected by the Bill going to Standing Committee, that if we can ensure their rights in the extended Report stage, the good of the other back benchers—the vast majority, after all—who do not attend can also be achieved by relieving them of the tedium of the Committee stage on the Floor.
The right hon. Gentleman also talked about the back bencher. It is worth remembering that, while back benchers are certainly concerned about their rights on the Finance Bill, which is correct, they also constantly complain that they want more time for the kind of debates which interest them; and the great thing which we shall get by taking the Bill upstairs is more time. We have already conceded under Standing Order No. 9 a considerable amount of Government time each Session for topical debates by back benchers and the Opposition, plus the four half days. We are having requests also, for instance, for debates on the Select Committees on Science and Technology, Education and Agriculture. We are probably bound to debate, from time to time the Reports of the Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner, when they are of great importance, and we shall have to find time for the reporting back of Committees to the Floor if we want them to be full and important. Also, we must find time in our programme for what I believe is essential if we are to keep the balance—a continued strengthening of the critical power of Parliament against the Executive as expressed in the Committees and in their reports to the House.
That is my answer, therefore, to the right hon. Member for Harrogate. I see some sacrifice, but we must consider carefully before deciding certain substantial compensating advantages which I believe that the back bencher will gain from the change.
I now turn to the objection of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, when, perhaps rightly, he asked me


whether anything could be worse than pushing a Standing Committee into all-night sittings and also asked whether we were, by relieving the pressure on the Floor of the House in the Finance Bill, imposing on a Standing Committee an almost unbearable pressure. This should be looked at very carefully, but I reflected on it when he put the question, and asked myself whether there was anything worse than pushing a Standing Committee into all-night sittings. Why does he think that the protracted sittings of a Standing Committee are worse than the protracted sittings of the whole House in Committee? On the whole, such protracted sittings as the Opposition ensured by their opposition to the Steel Bill, and the fight which they made upstairs, do not harm the House. They fought and did their job. I can think of many things worse than a Standing Committee having to devote a long time to a subject. I do not know why that is wrong, but perfectly all right to have it kept down here on the Finance Bill.
The right hon. Member for Flint, West said that he thought that, if the Bill were taken off the Floor, the gust of public passion would not be able to flow into the Chamber, because Standing Committees were a sort of stratosphere where nothing mattered. This was not my impression of the Steel Bill Committee. The right hon. Gentleman's view is a little out of date. One of the troubles with this place is that people tend to think that Committees do not matter. It is important that they should matter, and should go on in the light of day, and that subjects be debated there as keenly as possible.
On the Transport Bill this year, I predict that the proceedings will be keenly reported, and noted with great interest, and that the Press will often be more interested in what is happening in that Standing Committee than in some things down here on the Floor, which need not be, just for that reason, important to the outside world.
I come now to the serious point of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West on the Loyal Address, when he said:
… unless it is the intention of the Government to extend the financial powers of the House of Lords—and I did not gather that that was in their plans—the Report Stage of a Finance Bill is virtually useless, because it is not possible to promise consideration in an-

other place, and unless the Amendment is already so perfectly drafted—which is most unusual in a Finanace Bill—that it can be accepted on the nod—and that is unusual, too—the Report stage is simply an opportunity for blowing off steam. I hope very much that the Leader of the House will consider this. I put it to him as a very serious point."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 854.]
I have considered it and accept it as a serious point which must be met. The right hon. Gentleman was fair to say that, if we just plump into a Report stage without any intervening stage, the Opposition would not be able to table Amendments other than perfect ones. We would not have a "clearing stage" for Amendments which could be discussed before they were added to the Bill. There would be no opportunity for the Government to consider, after the debate, whether Amendments were acceptable.
An answer has already been given by my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, who said in his evidence to the Select Committee that there might be an advantage in the interpolation of a Recommittal stage between the Committee proceedings and the Report stage. I would be willing, if this idea found general support, to consider allotting part of the time, say one day of the time allotted to Report, to dispose of both these points.
The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral made some comments on this notion of Recommittal, saying that the idea was more than unsound. I would ask him to consider that if the Opposition felt that it would meet this particular objection, we on this side would be prepared to work out something like this, which would satisfy or remove this objection—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I did not think that the whole approach would be unsound, but that it would be most unsound with a Recommittal stage, which would have to be for a length of time and not purely formal—probably two or three days—followed by a delay and then by a prolonged Report stage. Thus, no time at all would be saved.

Mr. Crossman: I misunderstood or misread what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, and I am relieved that I did, because I was surprised that, when the Select Committee considered sending the Bill upstairs, it said that, whether one favoured the idea or not, a Recommittal


stage would be an essential requirement if this happened. Although there is nothing in the Motion about it, we are prepared to consider that seriously.

Mr. Frank Hooley: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in asking whether it will be in order for an hon. Member to speak more than once during the course of the debate as we cover the various subjects?

Mr. Speaker: Each debate is quite separate.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Leader of the House made reference to my speech on the Address. I then said that in view of the conduct of the Bill earlier this year I regarded this proposal as a breach of faith. I simply record that. I do not retract it in any way and I do not wish to embellish it. Today, we are on the equivalent to a Committee stage. We have, as it were, passed the Second Reading stage of this matter. I merely think it right to state as clearly as possible, for the record, why this proposal arouses so much feeling on this side of the House.
It has been discussed on a number of occasions before—by the Select Committee in 1958–59 and by the Select Committee in 1962–63, when I was Leader of the House. I have always acknowledged that I started, as most Leaders of the House probably start, when they look at the block of time which financial legislation takes, with the hope that we could find some way of relieving from the Floor of the House the time taken by the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. But I was absolutely convinced by the arguments when I went into them in great detail in those years, particularly in the 1962–63 Select Committee when I was Leader of the House, and I have remained convinced ever since that the Finance Bill should have its Committee stage on the Floor of the House.
Let me take the points one by one. First, I do not accept that there is any valid comparison between the Finance Bill and any other Bill of which I know. It is not just a question of discussing new taxation—heaven knows, that is important enough—but also a question of discussing the very foundation of our taxa-

tion. For example, Income Tax is in the Finance Bill. This year the longest and, many who took part in it will feel the very best, debates that we had on the Finance Bill were on the appropriate level of Income Tax. From this side of the House we put forward the twin themes which the House will remember—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would then have been wiser to go for a reduction in public expenditure, balanced by reductions in taxation and the provision of incentives. I need not go back to argue who was right or wrong, although we can look back with some comfort to those debates.
The point which I make is not just because this was the original reason for the House of Commons coming into existence, but because all these matters in the Finance Bill affect the citizen in a way which means that it is not true to compare the Finance Bill with the Steel Bill or even the Prices and Incomes Bill, or with any other Bills, vastly important though they are. So much for the point about general taxation.
Let us consider—and I pick out one illustration—one tax in the 1966 Finance Bill, the Selective Employment Tax—a tax which I described as the silliest speech since we had the window tax. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It was not a very good speech, anyway. I meant, the silliest tax since the window tax. There was no question, as the Leader of the House will acknowledge—he was not Leader of the House at the time but he will remember it—of that debate being dull. The benches were packed throughout the debates on the Selective Employment Tax.
Although I have many quarrels with the Liberal Party, I would remind the House that on that occasion the Liberal Party and the Tory Party fought all the time, afternoon, night and any other time that they could get, against the Selective Employment Tax, which has increasingly, and largely as a result of those debates on the Floor of the House, been discredited. That was an achievement which I do not believe could have been carried out in the same way if the debate had taken place upstairs, for one by one the concessions were wrung out of the Government—concerning agriculture, charities, Cornish mines, part-time workers and now the premium. All were argued by the Tory Party and, as I have acknowledged, by the Liberal Party.

Mr. Nigel Birch: And by many Members of the Labour Party, too.

Mr. Macleod: Indeed, as my right hon. Friend says, by many Government supporters, too. The debate on that tax would have been much less fruitful and much less damaging to the Government if it had been tucked away upstairs.

Mr. Hooley: I cannot see how opposition to or criticism of that tax, valid or otherwise, would in any way have been affected by the discussion being in Committee. There might have been a better informed and sharper debate by the fact that it was in a smaller body.

Mr. Macleod: There are many answers to that, but I will give two. I referred earlier to the fact that for the S.E.T. debate there were packed benches. I have rarely seen on a Committee stage so many hon. Members present. That would not have been possible if, say, 50 hon. Members only had been taking part in the Committee stage upstairs. Nobody can deny that the great interest aroused in that tax—and I am not arguing its merits—and the feeling aroused by the tax, as the hon. Member will acknowledge, was followed in the Press, radio and on television because it was on the Floor of the House in a way which, in my view, would not have happened if the debate had been in Committee.
I take a small point to which I hope the First Secretary will refer in his reply to the debate, because it puzzles me to some extent. I do not make a major issue of it. It was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). The Leader of the House did not touch on it this afternoon. It was how Members are to be able to speak in a Committee or to make their point of view known, and how one finds out, in something which affects the whole House, what is going on in that Committee. I know that it is a problem which we sometimes face in the mornings in other Committees, but this is a very different proposal, if anything like the hours suggested by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury are to be adopted.
I turn to the question of the Report stage. It is clear that if the proposal goes forward there will have to be a

longer Report stage. In his evidence the Patronage Secretary spoke of four or five days. When he introduced these proposals a short time ago, the Leader of the House spoke of three or four days. No doubt that is a matter for discussion. I should like to study in HANSARD what the right hon. Gentleman said today, but I did not feel that it carried us much further forward, because it is normal, or at least extremely common, to recommit part of a Bill on Report stage.
I have read the Patronage Secretary's evidence to the Select Committee more than once, including the idea that we might divide the Report stage into two. No doubt we shall do that, but I am not convinced that it overcomes the major difficulty, which the Leader of the House recognised, that because there are no financial powers attached to another place the Report stage of the Finance Bill has a finite quality which does not apply to most Report stages. I will not go into detail about that, because we shall probably have discussions about it, but it is an interesting and most important point.
The Leader of the House believes that by doing all this we shall save quite a lot of time. I wonder how much it will save in practice. Seven or eight days are normal for a Committee stage. There are to be at least two days more for Report. Let me say, for the sake of argument, that six days will be saved. The House is rarely impressed by statements by any Leader of the House that he does not intend to take any of that time for his own purposes. It is true that some of the debates which are often taken at odd times of the Session, and perhaps when 'normally we should have risen for the Summer Recess, may be taken now at a rather more suitable time, but these are not matters which gravely disturb the House. I doubt very much whether, at the end of it all, we shall have more than two days extra for our ordinary purposes, whatever they may be. That would be my estimate of the time saved on the Floor of the House.
What shall we do with those two days? We know—I take one example—that there will be strong calls for a debate on Vietnam. But we also know that, although the House can make speeches on Vietnam, what it can do about Vietnam is strictly limited. It seems to


me a great pity to take away from the Floor of the House action on matters such as taxation which the House can affect and to turn its time, even if for only two days a Session, to matters which basically the House is powerless to influence. I do not think that the Leader of the House will benefit the House by this proposal.

Mr. Hooley: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the House debates subjects such as science and technology—which are extremely important and relevant and over which we have control—far too rarely? Has he not made a somewhat selective illustration by picking on Vietnam?

Mr. Macleod: No, because if I know anything about the House, the pressures which will arise for those two days will be precisely along the lines that I have indicated. I think that the hon. Member knows that, too. He wishes that what I am saying were not true, but he rightly suspects that it is true.
These proposals will operate for the 1968 Budget. Obviously, there is nothing sinister in that, because they were planned before devaluation and other matters. But it has been confirmed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as recently as last night, and by his predecessor, that we shall have a tough Budget. That is not in dispute. It seems likely that it will be a controversial Budget. When we spent part of the time yesterday deciding how much of our financial business should be overseen by people outside the country, it seems a great pity that we should limit the amount of surveillance inside the House of Commons of what will be a contentious Finance Bill next year.
The Leader of the House directed his argument for the change on 14th November against me, and I make no complaint at that. As reported in col. 244, he said:
Our second reform of the Session was the compromise method of handling the Finance Bill which the Select Committee recommended for a Sessional experiment. We took a long time discussing it, and passing it, but, as far as I know, it was a dead letter before the Session ended because the 'shadow' Chancellor disliked it and preferred to rely on the traditional informal discussions between him and the Chancellor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 244.]

If the complaint against me is that I came to a gentleman's agreement with the present Home Secretary when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and that I should prefer to come similarly to a gentleman's agreement with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, I plead guilty at once. I have not the slightest doubt that this is the best way, in the interest of the whole of the House, to run the Finance Bill, and I made that quite clear on Second Reading. I quote what I said on Second Reading:
The long days of the Committee stage lie ahead. I made clear by my vote last night—indeed, on three occasions last night—that I personally deplore the increasing tendency of the House of Commons to try to make formal matters out of matters which, in my view, are better left imprecise. I have always had a good relationship with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer"—
now the Home Secretary—
and I have no doubt that it will survive this Bill and other Bills which we shall have to debate, on whatever side of the House we may find ourselves. But I believe it to be a mistake to have formal agreements about Committee stages of Finance Bills in particular. I believe that it is a mistake to talk, as the Leader of the House did, in terms of dishonouring an agreement whereas, at best, it can be a gentleman's understanding."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 429.]
That puts clearly the difference between the Leader of the House and myself on this matter.
What happened as a result of that informal understanding, gentleman's agreement, or whatever else one might like to call it, and which, in practice—as the House well knows—existed this year? These are the times on each of the eight days at which the last vote was taken; and again, as the House well knows, I made no secret on any of these days that, for the voting, it was the close of play. The times were 10.12 p.m., 11.59 p.m., 11.45 p.m., 10.51 p.m., 9.53 p.m., 11.40 p.m., 9.38 p.m. and 7.45 p.m. Not once after midnight, which means that all the points that the Leader of the House was making about it being improper to sit up till 5 o'clock in the morning and discuss all these matters were untrue. In fact, this system worked extremely well. Proof of that is provided in the figures I have given, which hon. Members can study for themselves in HANSARD.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) knows, it takes quite a lot of organisation—if I may say so, speaking on behalf of the Chancellor or the shadow Chancellor of the day—to get a Bill through in a reasonable time. The complaint which the Leader of the House makes against me is not that I kept the Committee late—he cannot do that in view of the figures I have given—and not that there was not an understanding, because there was, but simply that I would not sign on the dotted line as he wanted me to do. This is the difference between us.
Let me be absolutely clear about why I declined, and will always decline, to do that. The reasons are given clearly by my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip in column 20 in the evidence to the Select Committee on 7th February. He said:
I believe that an Opposition, and particularly an Opposition Chief Whip, has to go by certain clear principles regarding voluntary agreements: he must never make an agreement unless he is certain that he can carry it out. I have made many agreements, and have always delivered the goods'. If that is to be the case, then that Chief Whip must be in a position to know when he can make an agreement and when he cannot.
That is the position. It is no good one saying that one undertakes to do something unless one can be absolutely certain in this unpredictable House of Commons. Debates sometimes go on for much longer than expected. Some answers from the Government which are meant occasionally to mollify end up by infuriating the Opposition and extra time is needed. A classic case, which I have mentioned before, is the time when the Chief Secretary suddenly observed, in the middle of an absolutely placid debate, that the hovercraft was an ideal smuggler's vehicle. It took hours to sort out that observation. No voluntary timetable, even with the best will in the world, can do this.
I therefore ask the Leader of the House to accept that this is a very real and serious point. He should not talk, as he has, about dishonouring agreements. He should not put, as he is to do in due course—it would be out of order for me to refer to it now—a proposition that a Minister of the Crown can indicate when he thinks someone is breaking his word or that an agreement is working ineffec-

tively, as the case may be. The truth of the matter is, as I acknowledged to the Select Committee a year ago—

Mr. Crossman: I wish to check the content of my remarks to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Would he give me the reference in HANSARD?

Mr. Macleod: Column 244, on 14th November.
This seems to me a matter of very real dispute between us. The consequence is clear. The 1968 Finance Bill will take place under a Guillotine and there is no prospect of anything else. That is the decision of the Leader of the House. But neither I nor, I am confident, any of my hon. Friends has the slightest intention of making an agreement under duress. The result in practice will, of course, be a whittling away of Opposition time. This was made clear by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), when he gave this warning:
When we get upstairs, those who expect much shorter discussions may find themselves mistaken; discussions may be more lengthy. The silence that has been shown on the Government back benches may be replaced with a little more loquacity. There is the further fact that hon. Members on both sides feel some deterrent about speaking when, by doing so, they are keeping their hon. Friends up into the late hours of the night. Moving upstairs may remove at least part of this deterrent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 339.]
Fair enough, and I do not complain. However, the point is a simple one. If time is to be limited—and, in the nature of things, and for the reasons I have given and by the attitude which the Leader of the House takes this is bound to happen—and if the Government say, as they have every right to say, that they intend to take more of that time, then it follows that there will be less time available for Opposition criticism—and this may be the object, or one of the objects, of putting this before the House.
For these reasons, which I have tried to put moderately—but I assure the House that my hon. Friends and I feel extremely strongly about them—we believe that this proposal is improper and unfair. In one sense it is a waste of time our opposing it, because this is a Government decision and the Whips are on. Yet we are right to oppose it as strongly as we can. I should make it absolutely clear that, when we become


the Government, we will not feel ourselves bound by this particular decision. We feel that consideration of the Finance Bill in Committee should take place on the Floor of the House, and that is why we oppose this proposal.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: I find that there is general agreement among hon. Members that we need some measure of reform. However, as soon as one makes specific proposals for reform, the opposition starts. There is no point in reforming the procedure of the House unless that reform means that we will conduct our business either more expeditiously or more efficiently. It is because I believe that by sending the Finance Bill into Committee upstairs we shall conduct our business more efficiently that I have for long advocated this reform.
I am certain that to have the details of the Finance Bill discussed in Committee upstairs is a much better process than having the annual jamboree which takes place at present on the Floor of the House. I call it a jamboree, but I recall referring to it as the Parliamentary equivalent of the spring tribal dance. The whole point of a Committee stage is to enable hon. Members to examine a Bill in detail, and not merely to give hon. Members an opportunity to trot in and out of the Chamber during the proceedings—and, on the Finance Bill, they are very long proceedings indeed—and make speeches which delay the proceedings.
I have mentioned previously that this reform is precisely the one which I recommended in an Amendment in 1959, so at least I can be accused of being consistent. On that occasion I did not press the Amendment to a Division because of the sympathetic consideration which was given to my suggestion by Mr. R. A. Butler, as he then was, the then Leader of the House.
I was also fortified by what the then Mr. Butler said, because in 1958 he had submitted to the Select Committee on Procedure a memorandum, to part of which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has called attention. I should like to read another paragraph of that memorandum. It stated:
There seems little doubt that the point at which improvement in the procedure can be most easily envisaged is in the Committee stage.

It is, of course, a well-established tradition that matters of taxation should be dealt with on the floor of the House. But as conditions change tradition ought not to stand in the way of reform. While many of the Budget proposals embodied in the Finance Bill are admittedly of major importance, it seems probable that discussion of the detailed provisions of the Bill could be carried out at least as effectively in a smaller forum as in the Committee of the whole House. Provided that the House has an early opportunity to a debate the broad principles of proposed tax changes (in the Budget debate and on Second Reading) and to discuss, and if necessary reverse (on report stage) any decisions taken in Committee of which it may not approve, it is not easy to see that any vital principle would be breached if the Committee stage of the Finance Bill were taken to a suitable Standing Committee rather than on the floor of the House.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman read the next paragraph?

Mr. Blackburn: Yes. It reads:
Any such change would admittedly give rise to a number of practical difficulties.
Is that the passage the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: And the next sentence.

Mr. Blackburn: That reads:
It is virtually certain that a single Standing Committee will not be able to deal adequately with the Bill in the relatively short period available.
Is that the part the right hon. and learned Gentleman wanted me to read?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: indicated assent.

Mr. Blackburn: I was calling attention to the paragraph I read only because of the sypathetic consideration the Leader of the House had given to my Amendment in the debate in 1959. I disagree with that part which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) just now asked me to read.
It was, I think, in 1965 that particular attention was once again called to the question whether the Finance Bill should be dealt with by a Standing Committee. In fact, there was so much attention given to it at that time that we had the support of practically all the Press in the country. The Times, the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, and the Economist all advocated that the Finance Bill should go to a Standing Committee. After that Finance Bill had been dealt with, the present


Leader of the House boasted in an article which he wrote in the Spectator of 23rd June, 1965:
The time taken by the Bill"—
that is, the Finance Bill—
has thrown the Government business into complete disarray.
Is that the purpose of dealing with the Finance Bill on the Floor of the House?
As a matter of fact, I believe that on one occasion, and on a very minor matter, the then Opposition defeated the Government—but what did they achieve by it? What was the result? The Conservative Party has been the Government sufficiently often to know that the Government get their business. What was the result of throwing the Government, as the present Leader of the House said, into complete disarray? The result was that the Whitsun Recess was shortened by eight days and we sat on into August. That was the effect of the long sittings needed for the Bill in 1965.

Mr. Stanley Orme: What about hon. Members' health?

Mr. Blackburn: Well, some hon. Members' health—there are only some hon. Members who make a point of staying when the House sits late. As one who sat until the early hours of this morning I have very much sympathy with another Motion, which will be discussed later.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), in his book "Parliament and Mumbo-Jumbo", has some very useful quotations on the subject of the Finance Bill. There is one from myself which I shall not bother to read, but I want to call attention to one from The Times of 25th June, which stated:
Much of current labour criticism of Parliamentary procedure and practice runs the risk of losing sympathy for the sounder proposals for reform. As it happens, the Finance Bill now passing through the Commons shows where the main fault lies in the system and suggests how easily it could be righted.
When he was Leader of the House Mr. Iain Macleod came to the conclusion that there was only one way to give the Commons more elbow room, both for legislation and important debates. That was to shift the Committee stage of the Finance Bill from the floor of the House and send it to a Standing Committee upstairs, like many other Bills.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Unless the hon. Gentleman chooses to call me a liar, I dealt with that point just now. I said that, like all Leaders of the House, when I first became Leader of the House I started with that desire—the House must bear me out in this—and that I became convinced by the arguments, and have been convinced ever since, that it was wrong. The hon. Gentleman really must not make that sort of assertion.

Mr. Blackburn: I heard the right hon. Gentleman, and the last thing I would do would be to call him a liar. But it is very relevant to know that when he occupied the important position of Leader of the House, and had to get Government business through, he was strongly in favour of sending the Bill to a Standing Committee. I would add—

Mr. Iain Macleod: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I have made it quite clear that I was not in favour. I really must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his statement.

Mr. Blackburn: I certainly withdraw anything I can withdraw, but what can I withdraw? I read out the fact that in 1962 the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of the Finance Bill going to a Standing Committee. I would add something more. I was a member of the Select Committee on Procedure, of which the right hon. Gentleman was Chairman. When I brought forward the suggestion of sending the Finance Bill to a Standing Committee, he was my most enthusiastic supporter but, unfortunately, since he was Chairman of that Select Committee he did not have a vote. All I am calling attention to is the change that has taken place.
The right hon. Gentleman is mentioned there, as Leader of the House, as making suggestions about the only way to provide additional time for additional debates. I am not so much concerned with finding time for additional debates on the Floor of the House, because I have the great fear that the Government—whatever Government it may be—are always tempted to snap up any additional time for legislation. I am concerned with sending the Finance Bill to a Standing Committee because I think that there the consideration of the details of the Bill will be done much more efficiently.
What happens if we do take this step? If we pass this Amendment, it only puts the Finance Bill in the same position as every other Bill, with the exception of the Consolidated Fund Bill, the Appropriation Bill, or a Bill confirming a provisional Order. Therefore, what is the worry about accepting the Amendment and trying this out as an experiment, shall we say, for this year?
The Finance Bill would then be in exactly the same position as every other Bill, and it would be possible for a Conservative Government—as has been threatened by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West—to have the Finance Bill back on the Floor of the House. It would only need a Minister to move that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, so they need not have any great fear in accepting this Amendment. I do not see why they should vote against it, because they know that this year the experiment will be carried out. Indeed, I hope that the House will enthusiastically agree to this trial so that we can in future, speak from an experience and not from theory.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) has been speaking for the Opposition. The Leader of the House spoke for the Government. Someone has to put in a word for the back benchers.
This proposal affects the Government in one way and the Opposition the other way, but it affects every back bencher very detrimentally in respect of how he carries out his duties. The argument which has been put forward has a great deal of dishonesty about it. It has been put forward as if it were the idea of Mr. Butler, now Lord Butler, when he was Leader of the House. In fact, it was not his idea. What he put forward was that as an experiment the Finance Bill should be sent to two or three different Standing Committees which would sit at the same time. I think that Lord Butler made a very impracticable suggestion. I shall come later to the impracticability of the suggestion made by the present Leader of the House.
What no one has said is that while Lord Butler made that suggestion, Mr. Gaitskell, who gave evidence, was equally clear. He said:

I do not like the idea of the whole of the Finance Bill going to a Standing Committee.
He gave his view that we should try to divide the Finance Bill and send part of it to a Standing Committee. The other remarkable fact, which again is perhaps an odd feature of this debate is that in the Chamber there is present not a single Member on the Government side of the Select Committee on Procedure which has examined this matter and turned down this particular suggestion.
I see the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) looking rather anxious, but I am talking of the present Select Committee on Procedure, not the one which met in 1959. The present Committee looked at the matter exhaustively on two different occasions. It is true that we first asked for the division of the Finance Bill between administrative and budgetary procedures. We were told by the Treasury that although that suggestion was attractive, it was impracticable. We then came out with the idea of a timetable. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West, said. Of course, if we have a voluntary timetable, the whole purpose is for it to be held in reserve so that we can get agreement between the parties. For that reason, I think that this suggestion has not been presented in quite the frank and fair way this House would expect in an important debate like this.
I come to my main purpose in rising. Why is this a great infringement of the right of every back bencher? It is because the Finance Bill is something quite different from any other Bill. It is, first, a review of all existing taxation. It is the reimposition of certain personal direct taxation and it is the Chancellor's proposals for changes in taxation for that year. In so far as one can say, on the third category the arguments of the Leader of the House are perfectly valid, but they are quite invalid for the review of existing taxation and the reimposition of personal direct taxation.
My experience as a back bencher is that in the course of a Parliamentary year we have a number of cases put to us by constituents dealing with hardships suffered under taxation. We put those on one side and when the Finance Bill comes we try, if possible, to amend it by Amendments or new Clauses. This affects every back bencher, both on the Government and the Opposition side of


the House. No doubt this will be limited to the lucky 50 or 60 who serve on the Standing Committee. The rest of the back benchers will have no opportunity of raising their constituents' points during the stages of the Finance Bill. That I believe to be quite insupportable.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Does not this depend on the Leader of the House accepting, not the present Motion, but my Amendment to the following Motion?

Mr. Turton: Knowing the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), I am sure that he will make his intervention later.
This is a very real problem. Are we to maintain the right of a back bencher to take his part in the Committee stage of the Finance Bill? This worried us on the Select Committee on Procedure very considerably. We thought, if the Bill was to go into Committee upstairs, of having hon. Members who were not members of that Committee having the right to come into the Committee, but we came to the conclusion that that would be quite impossible, because hon. Members would drift in and out without having the right to vote for their constituents' recommendations. Therefore, the whole Committee rejected that conclusion. That was one of the reasons why we came to what I believe the right way of dealing with the Finance Bill.
I am as much opposed as anyone to all-night sittings. The older I get the more I dislike them, but I believe that the solution to the whole of the problem is a sensible understanding between the two sides of the House and for some sort of formal agreement with the backing of a voluntary agreement.
My third and final point is that this proposal will not save the time of the House.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, may I put this to him? If the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill is to consist of 60 hon. Members, is there not a danger that that number will be whittled away by successive Leaders of the House as the numbers on Standing Committees have been? Is he aware that the number of hon. Members on Standing Committees has been falling

steadily from about 40 to just over 20? This reflects how the rights of back benchers have been reduced.

Mr. Turton: That is quite right. When I first came to the House all Standing Committees had a membership of 60. At times, that was rather too many for a very small Bill, but undoubtedly, during the last few years, the Executive has been taking more and more away from the private Member. That is why I beg private Members on both sides of the House to consider this. It is possible that some hon. Members opposite may be private Members on the back benches in opposition quite soon if they are successful at the next General Election. This is as much in their interests as it is in ours.

Mr. Charles Pannell: As an old Parliamentarian, will not the right hon. Gentleman concede that the numbers on Committees have been reduced not because of political pressure but because of the practical possibilities of getting so many Committees? It has been the recommendation, the Leader of the House will agree, over all the years of Conservative Government that has reduced them. I happen to have agreed, but I hope that hon. Members will not put party political overtones on to what is a practical proposition.

Mr. Turton: I do not wish to intervene in an argument between hon. Members opposite. I thought that the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) was intervening in my speech.

Mr. William Baxter: I have no doubt that the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is aware that the method of selecting Select Committees is a mysterious one. I have been a member of this House for 8½ years, but I have never been asked to serve on a Select Committee. I do not know the method of procedure and by virtue of not having been selected to serve on a Select Committee I am unable to express a point of view on many subjects which come before the House. I would deprecate another Select Committee being appointed without back benchers knowing what was going on.

Mr. Turton: My speech appears to be used as a background for hon. Members


in various quarters of the House to voice their complaints.
I want to concentrate on my last point. Will this proposal save the time of the House very much? The evidence for my belief that it will not is the paper which was put in by the Chief Secretary to the Select Committee, and I should like to quote from the Fourth Report for the Session 1966–67, on pages 4 and 5. Paragraph 22 states:
The time saved on the floor of the House by removing the Committee stage might well be offset by extra time required for Report stage, which might be partly extra time in late night sittings.
As I see it, and listening to the Leader of the House, undoubtedly this will result in late-night sittings every night on the Report stage. I have reached the age when I no longer appreciate late-night sittings, and I should very much like to see whether the House can so run its affairs that late-night sittings can be avoided.

Mr. Crossman: I made it clear on Second Reading that, in my view, it would be highly likely that on the Consolidated Fund Bill on at least three occasions, and on the Report stage of the Finance Bill, the tradition of the all-night sitting would be likely to be preserved; and, indeed, I thought it was undesirable to try to prevent that because, in my view, back benchers had the right to sit through the night if they were desirous of looking after the interests which they represented. The hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the Report stage of the kind that we are designing would be like the Consolidated Fund Bill debate in that it would be an occasion when back benchers might feel they had a right to sit all night.

Mr. Turton: That is a fair and pertinent intervention. In fact, we are not going to save time.
Coming to paragraph 19:
The time available would involve the Standing Committee in working more intensively than a normal Standing Committee, possibly for eight hours a day, three days a week.
In other words, what the Treasury suggests—this is a Treasury proposal—is a 72-hour stint for the Standing Committee.
Again, referring to the evidence of the Chief Secretary, we find that he has given us the time that Committees have taken in recent years. In the period 1961 to 1966 the hours were as follows: 77, 62, 58, 34, 160—that was on the Selective Employment Tax—and 98 hours. Therefore, we shall be spending more time in Committee than we have spent on half the Finance Bills in recent years.
The other factor that one has to bear in mind are the new Clauses. In those years, as the Chief Secretary said, private Members' new Clauses occupied, in 1961, 17 hours; in 1962, 24 hours; 1963, 20 hours; 1964, 21 hours; 1965, 12 hours: 1966, 14 hours.

Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: rose—

Mr. Turton: I do not like not giving way, but I must draw the line somewhere.
We are not gaining time. We shall have the same length of time in Committee. We shall put an excessive burden on those 50 or 60 Members who are working all the afternoon. The Treasury says that it cannot work on the Finance Bill in the mornings. Indeed, the Treasury stated in its evidence that the Standing Committee will sit only in the afternoon and evening, and no doubt at night. What will happen to the debates in the House when we have this Standing Committee sitting for three weeks on end in the afternoons, evenings, and, I expect, at night? When we have debates, as we shall, on prices and incomes in May of next year, when we have debates on the borrowing powers, the Treasury Ministers will not be here. Nor will the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer and those who help him on this side of the House.
I do not believe this proposal will be good for the House of Commons as a whole. I believe it will be extremely damaging to the rights of the private Member.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Healey): Hon. Members and many people in the country have been much disturbed during the last few days by what we have regarded as the archaic and obsolete attitude of a particular group of workers to a certain problem in performing their work Those workers might reasonably have


replied to some of the criticisms expressed in this House, "Gentlemen, look to your own affairs and put your own house in order."
I regard the practice of taking the Committee stage of the Finance Bill in the whole House as archaic, obsolete and inefficient as some of the industrial practices which I believe are rightly criticised. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) made what I thought was an unfortunate sneer about those Members who wanted to keep office hours. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has repeatedly pointed out, and with great fairness, that the most willing and conscientious Members are those who are most savagely penalised by the habit of sitting throughout the night and by various other practices in this House which lead to what I regard as excessive continuous sittings.
It is not my wish to take the Committee stage of the Finance Bill from the Floor of this House simply in order to give myself a certain number of hours sleep. I can do that in other ways if need be. But I believe there is no gain and much foolishness in trying to transact business from the hour of midnight to 6 a.m. when it is possible to do it more efficiently and effectively in other ways.
I emphasise that what I—and I believe this is the opinion of many of my colleagues—are concerned about in making this change is to improve the efficiency of the working of the House. We reject the imputation that we are in some way worried about our own personal comfort. I doubt whether there are many hon. Members who come here merely because they suppose there is an easier life here than in other occupations. It is unfortunate that that kind of sneer was made from the Opposition Front Bench.
We who want this reform are concerned with a better method of transacting the country's business through the machinery of the House of Commons. I am absolutely satisfied that it is a complete absurdity to have a Committee of 600 Members. That is virtually a contradiction in terms. The whole essence of a committee is that it is a comparatively small group of people who can examine in detail matters which are not appropriate to be examined by the larger parent body.
I am not satisfied by the arguments from our ancient history, though I have respect for that history, as all hon. Members have, that the House cannot exercise its traditional control over voting Supply, taxation, and so on, unless we indulge in the ritual of the Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill. On the contrary, it is my firm opinion that what the House most noticeably lacks is a powerful and coherent Committee system for dealing with its business, not merely finance but other matters, too.
One of the reasons why I so strongly support the present proposal is that I regard it as a step on the way to a sensible Committee system for dealing with our general business. We have already set up certain Committees for particular purposes, but I regard this proposal as a more fundamental change and one which, I hope, will lead to a much more far-reaching and more coherent reform of the machinery of the House.
I take that view not only because such a change would be sensible in terms of transacting business, but also because it must be self-evident to all hon. Members—there can hardly be a quarrel about it—that the business of government is more complex today than it was 10 or 20 years ago and infinitely more complex than it was 50 years ago, and it is likely, on balance, to become more and more complicated as time goes on.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Is not the problem of taxation more difficult than it was 50 years ago? The hon. Gentleman must have had letters, many of them important letters, from constituents. How does he relate his present argument to his lack of opportunity to put constituents' views forward in time to get Amendments unless he is on the Committee?

Mr. Hooley: That touches a point made by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), a point which I wanted to take up. In my view, the fact that taxation is more complicated gives a stronger argument for having a Committee to deal with it. As taxation grows more complex and technical, there is a case for having a smaller body of Members to examine matters in detail in a way in which the whole House cannot do it and has really never pretended to do it.
The right hon. Member for Enfield, West made great play of the Selective Employment Tax. What happened, in fact? We had an endless series of speeches, endlessly repetitious, on one, two or three main points. I do not believe that that process secured any drastic or serious reform.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that those endless repetitions on three main arguments resulted in a change in the tax on those three main points 12 months' later?

Mr. Hooley: One cannot say that it resulted in changes 12 months later. That is not the point which the right hon. Member for Enfield, West made. He claimed that that weird process resulted in reform on the spot. I readily agree that the operation of the tax has resulted in changes, modifications and adaptations, put I am not convinced that they arose out of the ritual process of sitting here and listening to 19 or 20 hon. Members making exactly the same point at tedious length and wasting the time of the House.

Sir Douglas Glover: Is it not the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument that he had better sit down and not make a speech, as he will not influence the House?

Mr. Hooley: No. The logic of my argument is that my first speech might influence the House, but I doubt that it would be more influenced if 20 hon. Members made the same speech.
There may, however, be some point in bringing to the notice of the new Standing Committee on the Finance Bill a particular matter which interests a very small group of Members. There may be a difficulty here which the House would do well to consider and provide for, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will give a little thought to it. I think that the question will arise rarely. I hardly imagine that in a carefilly selected Committee of 50 or 60 Members there will not be one or more than one who is interested in a special case in the matter of taxation. Nevertheless, there is just a chance that, somewhere along the line, a specialised interest will find no representation on

the Committee. Provision ought to be made for it.
There is a difference of atmosphere between a Standing Committee and the Floor of the House. My brief experience of these matters is that there is a more constructive and thoughtful atmosphere of debate in a smaller group of Members than one normally finds on the Floor, where, unfortunately, one has an hon. Member wandering in who has not listened to the previous discussion, who is for some reason anxious to air his views about a question on hand, and who then goes away, after disrupting the general tenor of the proceedings on the Floor. This does not happen in Committee.
There is a more thoughtful, more constructive and more thorough approach to the discussion of Bills in Committee. I know that there arises from this a fear which is, perhaps, more present on this side than on the other side of the House, that is, fear of that wicked thing consensus. Some of my hon. Friends regard consensus as some sort of witchcraft or heresy, who think that, as soon as there is any kind of agreement between hon. Members across the Floor, there is something wrong. I do not altogether subscribe to that view. It is possible for sensible men holding different principles to agree occasionally on matters of practice.
One of the worries troubling the right hon. Member for Enfield, West may have been that, some day—perhaps in the1980s—when he is introducing taxation reforms in a Committee, he may find it more difficult to get through rather dubious proposals than he would in the House, where he could summon up the cohorts by the Division bell and make sure that 100, 200 or 300 Members who had not heard a word of the debate—

Mr. F. A. Burden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. C. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman has not been here.

Mr. Hooley: —and who simply come in to vote down—

Mr. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been here throughout the debate, except for a short time when I went out to telephone.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Gentleman has succeeded in informing the House, but it is not a point of order.

Mr. Hooley: I am quite ready to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I simply wished to finish the sentence.

Mr. Burden: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, after Members have been selected for Committee service, the Government will not ensure that they vote as required?

Mr. Hooley: Obviously, this will usually happen, but I am sure that it has been the hon. Gentleman's experience, as it has been mine, that a majority in Committee is by no means so automatic or so easily secured as a majority on the Floor. The hon. Gentleman knows that a high proportion of those who go through the Lobbies on a Committee point on the Floor of the House are not fully aware of its implications and are simply voting in support of the Government of the day. This will happen more rarely in Committee proceedings, though I do not say that it will not happen at all.
It has been regarded as an argument of some substance that by taking such matters on the Floor of the House the Opposition can delay proceedings, cause irritation to the Government, and make them give way on certain points by the sheer process of wearing down. I think that it has been shown on the Iron and Steel Act and on other legislation that, given determination by the Opposition of the day, it is possible for them to delay proceedings and insist on a very thorough scrutiny of the Government's proposals. Even in a Committee system there is abundant opportunity, if the Opposition so wish, to hold up proceedings. They have the same full rights of thorough discussion and examination as they would if the matter were considered on the Floor of the House.
I believe that the proposal will make for the more efficient conduct of the House's business and on that ground alone I support it.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I agree with one thing, but probably only one, in the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), and that is his statement

that this proposal involved a fundamental change. In this respect, he was a good deal franker than the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, though perhaps his right hon. Friend did not set a very high standard.
One fallacy of the hon. Gentleman's argument occurred to me as he addressed the House. He selected the example of the Selective Employment Tax and said that all the repetitious—as he regarded them—speeches made about the tax had no effect. But does he recall that they had one considerable effect that year, in that they induced the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to grant the exemption to charities which was not given in his original proposals? A great many right hon. and hon. Members addressed the House and the Committee on that point before the present Home Secretary was induced to change his mind.
Therefore, the very example that the hon. Gentleman selected to illustrate the uselessness of this Parliamentary procedure is an example of a case where a plain mistake was made by a Minister who had the honesty ultimately to admit it. As a result, serious injury to the charitable organisations was prevented by the action of hon. Members who made speeches which the hon. Gentleman may have thought repetitious but which were justified in the event.

Mr. Hooley: Is the right hon. Gentleman's case that that objective could not have been achieved in Committee?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I can only say that the hon. Gentleman's argument was that there were many repetitious and useless speeches about the Selective Employment Tax, and that the proposal we are considering would have obviated that. If he follows his argument to its logical conclusion he will see that it would have eliminated the speeches as a result of which, after a considerable time and, as he said, after many had had to be made, the Government changed their mind and reversed their mistake. There seems an overwhelming presumption that our present procedure helped to bring about a result which would not have been achieved under the procedure the Lord President of the Council suggests.
The hon. Gentleman's second point was that the proposal will prevent late-night


sittings. But will it? The Lord President of the Council told us a few moments ago that he expected them during the Report stage, which he has already told us he expects to take some days. Late-night sittings will certainly be involved, and they will also occur in the Standing Committees and, therefore, I wonder, even on a sober calculation of what one might call "man-nights", whether any significant saving of that commodity will be achieved. It is at least open to argument, And the hon. Gentleman is not entitled to treat it as self-evident.
I now come to the point which the Lord President of the Council challenged in my speech during the debate on 14th November. He took me to task for suggesting that nothing was worse than driving a Standing Committee through the night, and he argued that it was worse to drive a Committee of the whole House through the night. I do not know whether he has ever served on a Standing Committee that sat through the night. I recall that on one occasion he threatened us with such a procedure, but when his bluff was called the threat did not materialise. That is his method.
I have had the experience of sitting through the night on a Standing Committee. One has only to consider the contrast between the physical conditions in which a Standing Committee sits and those on the Floor of the House to see that there is a real difference in the hardship involved for those taking part. The Standing Committees' rooms are not air-conditioned. We sit in extremely close proximity to each other and, perhaps even more pertinently, to right hon. and hon. Members opposite. I have sat opposite the right hon. Gentleman in a Standing Committee and I say without discourtesy that contemplation of his features for many hours seems to me to be a pleasure which can be overdone.
The rules of a Standing Committee, with the very short interval allowed for a Division involving hon. Members in being in or very close to the Committee room the whole time, even on Amendments with which they are not directly concerned, make it much more of a physical ordeal. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's judgments of relative hardship are not self-evident, particularly to those who have experienced them both, I maintain the view that I expressed in our

previous debate that it is a very bad thing to drive a Standing Committee through the night, and much worse than driving the House as a whole.
I come now to the main issue. It is an outrage that the proposal should have been brought forward. It serves as a warning to any of my hon. Friends who might be tempted to co-operate with the right hon. Gentleman in future researches into the procedure of the House, because, for all the deliberations of the Select Committee—I have the deepest respect for the amount of work it put in, although I do not always agree with its conclusions—the right hon. Gentleman ignores them and brings forward the present proposal, which is not consistent with the Select Committee's recommendations. But it is wholly consistent with the right hon. Gentleman's intention to caponise the House, and turn it into a body designed to register the decrees of an all-wise Government. The trouble is that lately they have not proved to be a particularly wise Government.
Almost worse than what the right hon. Gentleman is doing are the reasons he gave in the debate on 14th November. He referred to the Committee stage of the Finance Bill as "a boring summer burden". The effects of recent Finance Bills may well be extremely boring for the taxpayer. I am not here to argue the contrary. But to suggest that the fundamental duty of the House, the decision as to what taxes are to be imposed on our fellow citizens, is a boring summer burden indicates a certain cynicism of which I have always suspected the right hon. Gentleman. These are immensely serious matters. Whether some hon. Members are bored by them or not, they are of immense practical importance to every one of our constituents. Their lives and livelihoods are directly affected by a large number of the Clauses of every Finance Bill.
It is the duty of the House to give the fullest consideration to them and not to brush them aside as a boring summer burden.
Then the right hon. Gentleman dangles before us debates on topical subjects and tells us how much more exciting they would be. But this House is not a debating society. This is the Commons of the United Kingdom in Parliament


assembled. Its duty is not to arrange entertaining debates, which the Government in general ignore—Hon. Members know that that is true—but to do the concrete work of the scrutiny of legislation and to seek to induce the Government to make changes where, as in the case I quoted of the Selective Employment Tax on charities, an error has been made.
The right hon. Gentleman said that in Committee upstairs the Finance Bill will get sedulous expert attention. Does it not get it in this Chamber? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Does the right hon. Gentleman take so low a view of the quality of hon. Members, on both sides, that he believes that we can get sedulous expert attention only by disqualifying 570 of us from taking part in the debates?

Mr. Crossman: I thought that I had made this clear in my speech. I said that I thought experience had shown that for the line-by-line examination of a Bill, a Committee of 50 working upstairs together usually did a more thorough job than we do working through the night on the Floor.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman sought to introduce the contrast of working through the night. Is he giving an undertaking that the Standing Committee would not work through the night also and under the physical conditions to which I have referred? Does he think that under those physical conditions, that Standing Committee will do the job better than we do under at least the better conditions in this Chamber?
Secondly, is not the right hon. Gentleman indulging in a generalisation which it is hardly possible to sustain? I will give him the point that with a technical Bill on, perhaps, the reform of the criminal law or of company or commercial law, a Standing Committee with a large number of hon. and learned Members can probably do an extremely good job on it. I am not, however, talking exclusively of such a Bill. We are talking of a Bill which contains Clauses of a technical nature—I have made it clear that I have never minded such Clauses going to a Standing Committee, although some of my hon. Friends take a different view—but a Bill which also includes the major taxation proposals affecting the

citizens of the United Kingdom. It is utterly wrong, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) so well said, to deprive each hon. Member who has had representations made by his constituents of the fullest opportunity in Committee to debate these matters and putting forward these points.
The Report stage is no adequate substitute. In the first place, there is no Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". Consequently, if one's Amendment is not selected, one does not have the chance, which one has in Committee, of raising the point on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". One is utterly cut out from raising it. If we are accepting this proposal, we are accepting that a large number of hon. Members will be forfeiting their right to raise a number of points affecting the taxation inflicted on their constituents for the year. Again, Report stage is the final stage, so that when the Government think that a Bill is wrong but themselves do not like the drafting of an Amendment, there is nothing they can do.
The Lord President of the Council this afternoon saw that point and made the suggestion of a Recommittal stage. Naturally, one would like to hear from the First Secretary of State exactly what that means. Will it be adequate to enable all Amendments which hon. Members who are not themselves members of the Standing Committee wish to put down in Committee but to be discussed on Recommittal? Secondly, will there be a sufficient gap between that stage and Report stage proper to enable the Government to put down Amendments and then for hon. Members, if necessary, to be able to put down Amendments to those Amendments?
If there is not that time gap, the First Secretary will realise that Recommittal could have very little value. There must be enough time for Amendments by hon. Members who are excluded from the Standing Committee, and there must be time between recommittal and Report stage proper if we are to get the two stages which are necessary to the handling of Amendments, particularly on such a technical subject as the Finance Bill. I hope that we shall hear more about this from the First Secretary, but I am left


with a feeling that if the answers to those questions are as I would like them to be precious little time will be saved.
The question will then arise, why make the change at all? I am the last person ever to suspect my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) of being a trifle naive, but I felt that he was this afternoon when he said that he did not see anything particularly sinister in the bringing forward of these proposals at this time. My right hon. Friend gallantly acquitted the Leader of the House of any knowledge that devaluation was coming until it was announced, and he may be right about that. There is the other possible view that members of the Cabinet actually knew a little bit about it earlier.
What is quite clear to all of us is that the 1968 Finance Bill—the Chancellor of the Exchequer more or less said so yesterday—will be a particularly critical and, in many ways, I believe, an extremely harmul one. We have been told that it will include provision to increase the Corporation Tax and so make more difficult the rôle of exporters. There is very good reason to believe that the 1968 Bill will contain a capital levy disguised under the title of a wealth tax.
I have a shrewd suspicion that this Measure is being put forward at this time to make it possible for a critical and controversial Finance Bill to have its most crucial stage in a Committee room upstairs with the majority of hon. Members debarred from taking part and in the hope that there will be the minimum of publicity for it.
The fact that the right hon. Gentleman has put forward this proposal—which is not the proposal of the Select Committee—at this time and decided to force it through by a party Whip is clearly not only consistent with his own ideas of Parliament and weakening its authority, but is directly related to the taxation changes and proposals already contemplated by the Government.
In those circumstances, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friends will make it clear that the Government's proposal is wrong, that it is especially wrong in these circumstances, that it will weaken the authority of Parliament, that it is designed to do so and that it is the last kick at Parliament of a dying Administration.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hooley (Mr. Hooley) that this proposal would lead to greater efficiency, but I base my arguments on somewhat different grounds. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) quoted a number of interesting figures about Standing Committees. He entirely missed the real point, however, namely that the number of persons concerned in a Standing Committee would be far less than the numbers involved in the whole House.
The right hon. Gentleman has also bandied about certain imputations of dishonesty and has spoken passionately of the rights of back benchers. The danger is, and this may be characteristic of a trend which is evident in the debate, that we may be guilty of lip service to a myth about what really happens during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill and very often what happens in the transactions of the House as a whole. The implication seems to be that during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill we are carrying out important legislative functions, but this is very much a myth. It is, by and large, a misunderstanding of the nature of our Parliamentary system.
We do not have, after all, the separation of Executive and Legislature. In practice, whatever the currency of the myths to the contrary, the rôle of the Legislature, so-called, turns out generally to be, on the part of the Opposition to oppose, and on the part of Government supporters, in the last resort, to maintain the Government. That is why one is so often confronted by the unrealistic accusation that one has perhaps not abstained on an issue on which one was known to have reservations. This happens as much in the Committee stage of the Finance Bill as anywhere else. The answer has to be that, in our system, we are voting not merely on one piece of legislation, but also on the survival of the Government, in that the Government are dependent on the confidence of the House—very often excessively so. But that is a separate issue.
We should be frank about what we really do during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. Very often, it is used as an opportunity for protest by the Opposition more so than by Government


Members. That is a perfectly proper activity. One of the methods of protest in the House, which is little approved of, perhaps with justification, outside, is through delaying tactics. It would be ungenerous of us on both sides to refuse to concede that, whichever party is in opposition, it generally tends to be repetitive and disruptive and to put down Amendments which have no hope of being carried, as an indication of its protest. This, rather than the creation of legislation, is what takes place in a Committee stage.
We should be clear in our minds about what we are doing. The time spent on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill will bear relation not to the complexity of the Budget, but to its acceptability or otherwise to the Opposition, and this brings out very clearly that it is an opportunity to oppose. But is it necessary that the time of the whole House should be spent on this understandable, worthwhile, but hardly legislative activity? A Standing Committee is a far more appropriate place for it to happen.
This does not mean that I think particularly highly of Standing Committees, either. One of my great disappointments on coming here was the explosion of another myth current not only among the population at large, but even among academic Government specialists—to the effect that, at least in Committee, whatever the restrictions on the free thinking of a back bencher in the House, in Committee at least he can get down to the work of thrashing out details of legislation.
I must confess that my experience in Standing Committee has been very different in that the indication of protest by delay is as typical in Standing Committee as it is in the House. Indeed, what we have is not a group of Members of different political opinions getting together to thrash out a piece of legislation but, by and large, a Minister wanting to get a Bill through and the Opposition indicating the degree of their disapproval of that Bill by the amount of delay they will cause.
When I first came to the House, I was give advice by a Whip who is not now a Member, regarding my approach to Standing Committees. It was to the effect, "If you are on a Standing Com-

mittee you would be well advised not to play the Opposition's game by contributing largely to what is said. In fact, it would be far more sensible for you, since you are not allowed to read a newspaper in the Committee, to do your correspondence". This should be known about our Standing Committees.
We are too inclined to keep up the pretence that something very important and constructive happens in Standing Committees. I will quote the examples of two Standing Committees, one on the Rent Act, 1957, under a Conservative Administration, and the other on the Agriculture Act, 1966, under a Labour Administration.
In the Standing Committee on the Rent Act, 57 per cent, of the Members were Conservative, 41 per cent. Labour and 2 per cent, Liberal. But, during the Committee stage, just over 70 per cent. of the talking, measured in columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT, was by the 41 percent. in opposition. This brings out clearly that the Committee, whether it be a Committee of the whole House or a Standing Committee, is more than anything not the place for creative attention to a Bill, but an opportunity for the Opposition to object. Most of the talking in that Committee was on Amendments which had no hope of being carried.
The Standing Committee on the Agriculture Act, 1966, comprised 60 per cent. Labour Members and 40 per cent. Conservative, and 75 per cent. of the talking was done by the 40 per cent. of Opposition Members. This is very significant. Although in another context what I have said about Standing Committees might be a criticism, it makes a Standing Committee admirably suited for the particular activity which takes place in the House during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
This sort of situation is not getting down to creative legislation. It is important that there should be opportunities for protest but it should not use up the time of the whole House, which could be better used. I suggest that, if we are to have different activity, it is in the extension of Specialist Committees of a functional and investigational nature that this should happen.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I shall not follow the hon. Member for


Conway (Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies) in his interesting discourse on the value of the House and Committees. He has little trust in either. I warn the Government that they should seriously consider what they are doing this year, when their own reputation in financial matters is at its lowest ebb. It could not be lower in Europe, in the world, or among their own supporters, and at this point they propose to destroy part of the rights of back bench Members. That is an act of great stupidity by the Government, because it will be misinterpreted as an effort to muzzle free speech in the House.
I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, but it is the impression we are given and it is on the sort of Budget they produce that the House will judge their rectitude on this issue. They would do better to withdraw this proposal for this year. The debates of 1959 have been referred to, but the whole point surely is that, since 1959, taxation has risen by well over £1,500 million. We are moving into an area of taxation where it is burdensome and dangerous.
What is more, the proposals put forward by the Leader of the House are not the sort, of proposals I believe the House and the country wanted to see regarding the Budget. What we wanted to see was a break in the mumbo-jumbo of the Chancellor of the Exchequer coming to the Dispatch Box with a Budget conceived by himself and his advisers, quite often without consultation with industrialists, the trade unions, or commerce. This is the sort of reform we expected to see from this "dynamic, go-ahead" Government. It would be of some value to the House and the country if there were proper pre-consultation with various interests in the country. But there is none.
Exactly the same thing will happen with these proposals. The Chancellor will arrive with an ill-digested Budget, like the last three, wrong in judgment—the present Government have probably been more wrong in their judgment of financial and economic matters than any Government since Ramsay MacDonald's—

Mr. J. T. Prire: rose—

Mr. Fraser: I shall not give way, for other hon. Members wish to speak.

These proposals will make no improvement in that respect.

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman is making a vigorous speech, whether one agrees with it or not, but he is suggesting that the presentation of the Budget should be in collaboration with all kinds of outside bodies, in co-operation between the Chancellor and industry in its various manifestations. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that constitutionally this would be opening the country's financial activities to the gravest kind of speculation which has already nearly wrecked us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the House and not for the Chair.

Mr. Fraser: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that very valuable intervention.
What I have suggested is precisely what is done in many other countries where there is consultation. It would be valuable to have a Select Committee on Finance which could assist the Chancellor in the making of his Budget, like the Senate Committee assists in America in the formulation of financial policy.
But we have no such proposal here. There is just the same stale old thing, with one exception—the rights of back bench Members are being diminished. All we are getting is the same old-fashioned rigmarole and rattletrap with no new ideas from the right hon. Gentleman who considers himself to be a constitutional innovator. There is no innovation here other than the suppression of the freedom of speech of back bench hon. Members.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) dealt admirably with the suggestion that back benchers would have their rights protected by the Report stage. There is absolutely no chance of a back bench Member, on Report, having the same sort of right which he now has in a Committee stage on the Floor of the House.
Hon. Members opposite say that this does not matter, because much of what is said is tedious repetition. That may well be. The hon. Member for Conway was under a complete illusion about the point of the House of Commons, which is not to be efficient, not to be like a


machine, not to be like a piece of steel made in Sheffield, or a huge press, or a giant engine; the whole point of the House of Commons is to be effective. Effectiveness rather than efficiency is what should balance our considerations. A serious constitutional issue is raised by the removal of the right of back benchers to intervene. As my right hon. Friend said, they will not have the same opportunities in a Standing Committee on the Budget.
Let us consider how that Committee will be appointed. One Scottish hon. Member has said that the appointment of Standing Committees was a mystery, and I agree with him. If we were to have such a Standing Committee on the Finance Bill, the economists in the House would be graded into Class 1 and Class 2. Those who were clever enough would be graded Class 1 and would be appointed to the Committee, while those who were not clever enough would be graded Class 2 and not appointed.
As a result, inarticulate Members who might know one important fact about the economies of their own constituencies—and such a knowledge is worth a thousand rigmarole speeches—would be inhibited from co-operating with the professional economists, and so on, who had been graded Class 1. In any event, grading economists of the House of Commons is a laughable concept in view of what the world thinks of House of Commons economist; it would be an impediment.
I speak from the back benches and I have no faith in the selection by either Front Bench of hon. Members to serve on a Standing Committee. Why should I have? The Government would appoint those they choose as Lobby fodder, those who would not open their mouths. The Opposition Front Bench would appoint the most articulate, the most difficult in opposition, the quick lawyers, with respect to my legal hon. Friends, those who could hold up debates and stop Bills from going forward. That is precisely what will happen. Such a Committee would have a very little value, not nearly as much value as the sort of debates which we have in Committee of the House. Hon. Members have mentioned the Selective Employment Tax of last year. How right were the comments of hon. Members on

both sides of the House about S.E.T. If the Government had paid more attention to those comments, how much better off the country would be today!
In the House is a vast wealth of knowledge and, what is more, through contact with constituencies and through memberships, constituency Members keep in close touch with the finances and well-being and work of the people in the country. This proposal will break that link and do great damage to Parliament and to our financial future.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: I am the first hon. Member on this side of the House to express a little doubt about this proposal, but I have not been helped very much in that by what has been said by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), or the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser). It was most unfortunate that on an issue of this kind there should have been such political invective rather than a concentration on the constitutional issues. I want to put one or two questions which I hope the Government will endeavour to answer.
Unlike the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone, I have never been on the Front Bench, but I am as suupicious of Front Benchers as the right hon. Gentleman is. I have served on Committees on which there has been a preponderance of lawyers, and they have driven me mad. I cannot think of anything worse than a Committee of so-called defence experts. I think that they, too, would "drive me up the wall". I do not look forward with much pleasure to a Committee of 60 Members being regarded as financial or economic experts, or calculators, and I should be troubled about such a Committee.
The most significant point to have been made so far was made by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), when he spoke of the right of the back bencher to influence financial policy in every respect. If we are to do that, we must be sure that our machinery permits it and it is on that issue that I feel some doubt.
As a back bench Member, I have never brought myself to be interested in all the


financial difficulties of taxation as such, but from time to time I have felt compelled to raise fundamental matters of special interest to my constituents.
May I give an example? The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames will remember how I challenged him when he was at the Treasury about the Purchase Tax on chocolate biscuits and on many other questions. There was a time—I am going back a few years—when it seemed that hon. Members on both sides of the House believed that jewellery was a luxury and, therefore, that it should carry Purchase Tax of 100 per cent. We brought pressure year after year on the Government to try to convince them that jewellery was a necessity as it was part of our export trade, and, as such, should not be faced with the difficulties which industries have to face when they bear taxes like Purchase Tax.
I was not interested in all the complexities of finance, but year after year I raised in the House the question of Purchase Tax on jewellery. Fortunately, Lord Amory, as he now is, who was then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at last conceded our right to have the matter reconsidered.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. Most of us will remember how strongly and for how long he put forward his case. But under the new arrangements the possibility is that he will not be on the Committee and will not be able to make such representations.

Mr. Yates: I am coming to that point.
I am not anxious to be involved in every intricate financial proposal. As a back bencher, I want the right to be able to raise somewhere matters on behalf of my constituents. In previous years I have referred to the bicycle industry. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know how we have struggled to examine thoroughly the motor car industry in Birmingham and Coventry during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.
I am all in favour of the Committee system, but there is a difference between the normal Committee stage and what is proposed for the Finance Bill. Not only is it proposed that the Committee on the Finance Bill should be wider, but apparently it will meet not in the mornings

but only in the afternoons. I must express my concern about a large Committee meeting in the afternoon when the House is sitting. It will be a case of the House of Commons proper and a miniature House of Commons meeting at the same time. I can see difficulties about that. I should like to be assured by my right hon. Friend that if we allow the Finance Bill to go to a Committee upstairs, with all the difficulties that there are, we shall be able adequately to put forward all the views which we think should be put forward concerning increases in taxation and the methods of taxation as they affect our constituents.
It is said, "There will be the Report stage". On Report, we do not generally raise matters which have been discussed in Committee. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) said, "How will we be able to get points across to the Committee?" It would be difficult for a member who was not serving on the Committee to get over to the Committee a particular matter which he wanted to be discussed. But, even if it is discussed, suppose that we want to raise the matter again when the Bill reaches the Floor of the House. If there is adequate time on Report, and if procedure is not so strict, perhaps we shall be able to raise on the Floor of the House quite a number of matters which have been raised in Committee. I should like to know whether that is so.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is making a very practical point in defending the rights of back benchers. The Report stage of the Finance Bill is quite different from the Report stages of ordinary Bills. In the case of ordinary Bills, one makes a point on Report and a promise is given that it will be dealt with in another place. But another place does not deal with finance matters. As a consequence, the effectiveness of the Report stage on the Finance Bill will be weakened.

Mr. Yates: I appreciate that point. As a back bencher, having no prospect, and never having had any prospect, of sitting on the Front Bench, I want to know whether I shall be able to raise these matters, and, if so, how.
The Finance Bill Committee will be different from other Committees because it will be meeting at the same time as


the House. If the Finance Bill is sent to a Committee upstairs, I wish to be assured that hon. Members will have adequate opportunities to pursue their constituency interests. That is absolutely vital. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames thinks that what the Government are proposing is sinister. I do not believe that it is sinister. This proposition has been discussed for years; it has not just emerged. Many people have advocated it. But I do not believe that they have always understood what they may lose. I can appreciate that new Members think, "This is ridiculous. It is a lot of repetition". I have served on Committees when the repetition has been enough to drive members mad. If it is a question of repetition, it can be done upstairs as well as downstairs.
I am not opposed to an experiment. I am offering a few cautious observations about whether this is the right thing to do. I cannot see how two days on Report will compensate for the mass of observations which hon. Members may wish to make. If that is adequate, it may be worth considering.
Those are my fears. I can see all the attractions of putting the Finance Bill in Committee upstairs. I have come to the conclusion that all-night sittings are the worst feature of our Parliamentary system. I want an end to all-night sittings. If Parliament does not end them, I shall take steps to end them for myself. If every hon. Member were to take that view, there would not be all-night sittings. I shall give sympathetic consideration to any proposal which may limit our sittings, provided that our rights as back benchers covering every aspect of taxation are preserved and provided we have an adequate opportunity to state our views. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give an assurance on these points.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. James Ramsden: I absolutely agree with the most effective speech made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates), who speaks from an experience of these matters which is very much longer than mine. I hope to help concentrate the attention of the Leader of the House upon the practical effect of his proposal, which the hon. Member for

Ladywood has already touched upon. I have tried to make two speeches on the principle involved, and I do not want to repeat them. I thank the Leader of the House for his courtesy in replying earlier on.
In my view the practical difficulties of trying to get a Finance Bill through a Committee of limited membership have been insufficiently considered by the Leader of the House. I asked the Library to do a little research on my behalf about the figures involved in the proposal to send the Finance Bill upstairs. I tried to make a fair comparison as between Finance Bills which went through when the party opposite was in opposition and those that went through when we were in opposition.
I found that in the Committee on the Finance Bill in the autumn of 1955—after the famous "pots and pans" Budget—no less than 104 Socialist Members, 49 Conservative Members and one Liberal Member made speeches. On the controversial Finance Bill of 1965, which included Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax, 96 of my right hon. and hon. Friends made three speeches in Committee in the first three sittings alone, and that was before we reached the stage of discussing Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax.
What can we deduce from these figures? In my opinion, the Finance Bill covers such a wide sweep of ground and impinges upon so many interests which our constituents feel to be vital that we simply cannot constitute an upstairs Committee big enough or expert enough to provide anything like adequate opportunity for the proper representation of those interests.
Our constituents expect us to make speeches on many topics covered by the Finance Bill, even if we are not financial experts. I do not normally participate with any great authority in financial debates, but my constituents expect me to say something when, for example, a Bill impinges on the interests of the hotel industry, as so often happens.
Such is the diversity of problems raised by the Finance Bill, and such is the great variety of expertise needed, that one requires to constitute a Committee that cannot be constituted upstairs if the Bill is to be adequately discussed in all its


aspects. That is my answer to the Leader of the House when he suggests that this worked quite well in the case of the Steel Bill and the Transport Bill. Those Bills each dealt with one subject. We can get together a team of hon. Members who know about a certain subject and can cope with the weight of work that such a Committee involves, but how are we to create, with a Committee of 50 Members, a situation in which perhaps 20 Members on my side of the Committee have the time, energy and ability to deal adequately with the flood of Amendments that are put down all the time on a variety of different subjects, without killing themselves with the strain? How are they adequately to represent the points of view of those who rely on this opportunity to have their points of view expressed?

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Not only is my right hon. Friend correct in his figures: over the years different Finance Bills have involved more than 100 different Members—but they are not the same Members, so the variation over the House is much greater.

Mr. Ramsden: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
In his concluding remarks the Leader of the House seemed to give the impression that many hon. Members valued the time that we spend in debates on the Finance Bill and would like to see that time preserved in its entirety, but, on the other hand, some hon. Members wanted to see time saved, and valued more the opportunity that might accrue for wider debates on different topics. It seemed to me that the Leader of the House came down on the side of the latter category.
What worries me about the position is that on the Governmnt benches we always find pressure for opportunity to debate wider subjects and a reluctance to spend time debating the Finance Bill. The hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies) was right when he said that the Finance Bill should be regarded as an opportunity for Opposition protests, and the Leader of the House was wrong.
The Leader of the House has perhaps failed future generations in the House of Commons by not safeguarding the interests of future Oppositions and minorities. The figures that I have given show

the importance to the Opposition of adequate Committee time on the Finance Bill. It must be remembered that the present situation of the parties will not go on for ever. I was thankful to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) say that should the position be reversed we should not expect to be tied to the permanency of the present lamentable proposal.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates) will not be unduly embarrassed if I confess straight away that he stimulated me to make a few observations that I might otherwise have retained for another time.
After listening to the rather rip-roaring and passionately excitable speech of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser), who has now left his place, I thought that my hon. Friend went a long way, with his quiet approach to the question, towards restoring some grace and verisimilitude to this Chamber. I agree that my hon. Friend is not always like that, but this evening he expressed very fairly and temperately some of the doubts in the minds of more hon. Members than himself on this side of the House.
I have spent a number of years as a Member of this honourable House, and one thing that has always interested me in my work here has been the Finance Bill. Few years have gone by since I came here when I have not made a little contribution which may have interested some people, and by which I have discharged by honourable duty to my constituents to raise matters which have been in their interest.
I do not want to become excited, as some hon. Members opposite are likely to become, in discussing our constitutional procedures—as we are doing tonight and have done recently, in debating other procedural Motions. Our constituents and the people of the country do not care much about our proceedings so long as we discharge our obligations as Members of Parliament. Therefore, I speak a little with my tongue in my cheek, because our main purpose is to carry out loyally our duty to see that our constituents have sound financing of the


nation's affairs, decent social services, and a reasonable defence policy at a rate which we can afford.
Tonight's proposition, if carried—as it will be, in view of the Government's majority—fundamentally alters our constitutional procedure, because the Finance Bill is the machinery for levying taxation and the first stage in the supply of money to the Crown. Many hon. Members, some no longer with us, argued this matter passionately during the 13 years which I spent in opposition. We made full use then of our opportunities on every Finance Bill. In one such debate, in 1954 or 1955—I have not prepared these details in the Library—we were having an all-night sitting, which, like most sensible hon. Members, I deplore, but in which I have taken part on occasion and which I have enjoyed—[An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] If the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) wants to start the business in which he was involved last night, the debate will go on much longer. I am trying not to waste time.
On that occasion, at about 4 o'clock in the morning, there was so much, perhaps factious, opposition that Mr. Deputy Speaker said that if hon. Members did not behave themselves he proposed to leave the Chair. Someone said, "I beg to move that Mr. Deputy Speaker do leave the Chair". Captain Harry Crookshank, who was then Leader of the House—and a very good one—did not wake up enough to see what the situation was. He did not challenge the Motion and it was carried and Mr. Deputy Speaker walked through the door behind the Chair with the Finance Bill in his hand. He took it out of the House and it had to start again at square one.
The Opposition of which I was a part in those years were alive to this duty, because we did not like the Government of the day or their Finance Bill and opposed it for all we were worth. I do not object to opposition in the House. This is the reality of politics. This is why we sit opposite each other instead of having tiered benches separated by great spaces as in some Continental legislatures.
I suggest that the Finance Bill, being the first stage of Supply to the Crown, is one stage at which any constituent with

a grievance should be able to articulate it on the Floor of the House through the mouth of his Member, on the time-honoured principle that no grant is supplied to the Crown without redress of grievances. This used to be passionately argued by some of my hon. Friends who are no longer with us. It was also argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman), who I see listening sphinxlike to what I am saying.
But I was thinking particularly of our old colleague for Stoke-on-Trent, South, Ellis Smith, who used to make this kind of speech much better than I am doing in his own vernacular. The House enjoyed it, because he was stating an integral part of the principles by which the House discharges its duties.
I do not want to get as passionate as the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone, but I must add that, when people talk to me about increasing the speed of motor cars from 50 miles an hour to 60, 70, or 100 miles an hour, as a man of sensible philosophy, I am entitled to ask, "What do you do with all the time saved at 100 miles an hour when you could have got there safely at 50 miles an hour?" This may be thought very old hat by some of my more modern hon. Friends, who have come here to reform this place. I do not stand in the way of reform. There is much to be done and much new sweeping is needed, but I want to know that the reform will produce a better state than the one it replaced.
I am not convinced that, by saving a lot of time, we will necessarily release it to serve the nation which sent us here more efficiently. We may have a few spare days. I am not sure whether the estimate of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) that, after all this business, we will not save more than two days, is correct. We might save more than that by having the Committee stage upstairs, but, even if it is only two days, I do not want two days of waffle inflicted on me by a pressure group which wants the Leader of the House to give it Parliamentary time to bellyache about a dialectical or academic matter with no practical impact on the country's affairs.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone has returned, since


I referred to him when he was absent, probably getting a bite to eat. When he gestured scornfuly in my direction, as if making a personal reference, and then talks of Lobby fodder, I would ask: who would ever accuse me of being Lobby fodder? This is not what I came here to be. I am, I hope, a loyal Member of my party, with a record which compares favourably with that of the Leader of the House. When a few of us with some experience of this place make it clear to him and to the House—not behind anyone's back, but within the full knowledge of the House [HON. MEMBERS: "In the Lobby?"] I will decide that for myself—[An HON. MEMBER: "Running away."] No, I am not running away. I am trying to make a reasonable speech and hon. Members opposite will, I hope, respect what I am saying. It is not easy to say and there are not many left here to say it.
I am saying this because I am not so naive as to suppose that a Government of the party to which I am attached as a declared Socialist, with nothing to hide, are any different from any other Government of Tories or any other party. Every Executive will try to get its business, regardless of the feelings of its own back benchers. This is natural: it is the duty of a Government to get their business, and if they have a Parliamentary majority they will use all the machinery to ride roughshod over Members who do not entirely agree with them. An unhappy example of that occurred yesterday, but that has no bearing on this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood said sincerely that we want to know that the constitutional position of back benchers will be sufficiently safeguarded so that we can express our constituents' feelings on important financial matters on the Floor of the House if need be. Second, if time is to be saved by truncating our procedure by means of a Standing Committee, however high powered, God forbid that it should be a Committee of high-powered economists—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or lawyers."] Yes, or lawyers. We want to be assured that, if this Committee saves time, that time will be properly used in the nation's interests and not to further the desires of small groups and cliques in the House.

I have I hope said what I wished to say spontaneously and that it will be taken as an expression not only of my point of view, but of that of many who are not here tonight but who are deeply concerned about what is taking place.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate. I have some sympathy with the Leader of the House. There has been a continual demand to save time on the Finance Bill, and I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) will confirm that he found it extremely difficult to divide the Bill, which was one proposal, and that we have therefore come back to the proposal to send all of it to a Standing Committee. But I am bound to join with the hon. Members for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) and Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates) in saying that we cannot accept this proposal without clear safeguards.
I am entitled to say, to begin with, that, if the House really wants to save time, this is a powerful argument for some measure of devolution to Scotland, Wales and the regions within the three centres, which would be the simplest way of doing so.
In my experience, many detailed debates are much more effective than global debates. Many a time this House discusses foreign affairs in general in a great two-day debate. The House is practically empty for most of the time and a panoramic discussion takes place which could well go on in the columns of The Times. The business of the House is not only to discuss, but to discuss with a view to persuading or forcing the Government to take some action, and this is much more likely on a specific point than on a great global subject.
Thus, I do not entirely accept the view that the House should necessarily save time on what may appear comparatively small matters so as to make it available to very large debates. In some ways, foreign affairs might be sent upstairs just as well as the Finance Bill. Further, there is a tradition of protecting small parties in this place. We now have one party in the House of 12 Members and two of one each, and they must be represented on this Committee. If it is to meet while the House itself is sitting, this


will create considerable difficulties for minorities.
I would agree with much of what has been said opposite so I need not say it again. It is true that, in the days that we discussed such things as Purchase Tax, it was exceptionally important for hon. Members whose constituencies were affected to be able to speak upon them. This point was very well made by both the hon. Members to whom I referred.
Two points might be put by the Leader of the House. One is that hon. Members who feel that some points concerning themselves and their constituencies must be raised will be able to put those points in private to Ministers or will be able to get other hon. Members to raise them on their behalf. But one of the most dangerous tendencies in modern government is for decisions to be taken out of the daylight and behind the scenes. I should not be content if I felt that representations were going on in private to the Government which could not be freely debate either in Committee or on the Floor of the House.
The fact that we can make representations to the Government does not meet the point. Nor do I think it satisfactory to say that hon. Members may raise points in Committee for other hon. Members. We are still sent here by constituencies and not by parties, and we have obligations, first, to our constituents. We are supposed to speak with our own mouths, to think with our own heads and to react with our own hearts, and we are not supposed to delegate all that to other hon. Members. That is a very important point which should be safeguarded.
I should like the Government to explain their proposals in far more detail. What is to happen on Report? How are we to deal with the point that there is no further consideration in another place or with the point that if a subject had been discussed in Committee, technically it is not discussable again on the Floor? Would it be acceptable to the Government for hon. Members to be added to the Committee for certain parts of the deliberations? The Liberal Party have a proposal on the Order Paper on this subject, but we cannot discuss it now.
Exactly how do the Government foresee their own behaviour during the

Finance Bill? Will they regard the Report stage as affording another Committee stage which they approach with an open mind, being prepared to listen to all sorts of new suggestions? I hope so. But Report is a later stage in the process of the Bill, and it might make considerable difficulties for the Government. I have genuine sympathy with the Leader of the House, for it is very difficult to save time in the House without doing something about the Finance Bill. He could well argue that we pass Estimates on the nod and that many important matters are sent to Committee upstairs without protest, but the fact that these questionable things occur in our system is not necessarily a reason for adding to them.
If the right hon. Gentleman can assure the House that the Committee will be flexible, and if he can reassure us about the Report stage, his proposal ought to be considered. I do not know how far he is prepared to go about the composition of the Committee, which obviously is a vital matter. But certainly on the bare bones of it—that the whole matter should be left to Committee and that hon. Members should merely be entitled to a problematical right to talk on a Report stage of doubtful length—I do not think that the House should accept his proposal, and I should certainly vote against it.

619 p.m.

Mr. John Peyton: As I am the first ordinary hon. Member to speak from this side of the House, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) will allow me to say that perhaps the most valuable point thrown up by the debate was the speeches made by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates) and Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). Both spoke from the heart, and they spoke with a great deal of experience of the House.
I am not seeking to embarrass them by giving them Opposition support, but in what they said they had the respect of most hon. Members on this side of the House. The principle which they sought to enunciate was very important. It is always difficult to deduce from the faces of Ministers exactly what their reactions are, but I very much hope that the Leader


of the House digested the import of what 'his two hon. Friends said.
I will be very brief. The points which I want to make arise directly out of the speech made by the Leader of the House this afternoon. He suggested that the view that money matters should be kept on the Floor of the House was becoming increasingly out of date, and he added that the Government's purpose in putting forward this proposal was to relieve hon. Members of the tedium of the Committee stage. I marked his words. I have never heard such a direct condemnation of a proposal as that from the Leader of the House. To say that one of the main duties of the House of Commons has become a matter of tedium for us is a reflection upon us and no one else.

Mr. Crossman: The hon. Member must have misunderstood or misheard me. I said that it was to relieve hon. Members of the tedium of a Committee stage on the Floor as contrasted with a small Committee upstairs. I was expressing a preference for a small Committee, rather than the Floor of the House, as a forum for dealing with detailed work.

Mr. Peyton: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that by the withdrawal of the Finance Bill Committee stage from the Floor many hon. Members would be spared the tedium of having to take part in the debate or having to be present in the House while the debate was going on.

Mr. Crossman: I said that from my experience—and it is no wider than the hon. Member's—a Committee stage should be in Committee. If it is in Committee, it is often efficient and it often does better work, and it is not tedious. If it is on the Floor of the House and through the night, it tends to be tedious.

Mr. Peyton: That is the right hon. Gentleman's view. I have given my view, and I will not dwell on the matter.
I pay my tribute to the right hon. Gentleman in that I have never heard him more beguiling or more courteous than he was this afternoon. It took the perspicacity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West to make clear the argument on which we should refuse this forbidden fruit which the Leader of the House is offering.
Basically, the argument is this: what is the purpose behind the proposal? The Leader of the House tells us—and I would not dream of challenging his sincerity—that it is to strengthen the critical power of Parliament. I believe that the effect of the proposal will be to enhance the convenience of the Executive—an aim which I have never held very high or, indeed, cherished at all. I was here fairly late last night, although I shall not go into that argument.
The need in the House, whether we like it or not, is for more concern about finance, not less. It is wholly wrong that we should get rid of what the Government apparently regard as a formal and tiresome exercise which takes place annually. In fact, it is the most important exercise in Parliament every year. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West—a point echoed eloquently by the hon. Member for Westhoughton—that Parliament will gain nothing by pronouncing endlessly on matters which are right outside its control. To do that is fatuous. The plight of our country today demands, above all, a greater attention to the fundamental job of harbouring the nation's resources, rather than joining in this rather weak-minded, if not squalid, attempt at squander.
What the Government are doing will not make Parliament efficient. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) is right when he says that the aim should be to make Parliament effective. What the Government are doing is to enable a Parliament which the public increasingly comes to regard as complacent to dodge its duty in this matter.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I want to support the proposal which my right hon. Friend is putting forward to send the Finance Bill to Committee upstairs. Some of the backwoods speeches from hon. Members opposite are an indication—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: There have been a few backwoods speeches from this side of the House, too.

Mr. Orme: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that point. I hope later to answer one or two of the comments made by my hon. Friend the


Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price).
I agree that we want to make Parliament effective. Of course we do. But I recall the experience of the Finance Bill when I first came into the House in the 1964 Parliament. In the 1964–65 debates we had all-night sittings which were a protracted political fight—very genuinely—in the sense of the Opposition trying to delay the Finance Bill, and in my opinion they brought the House into disrepute with the public outside. At the end of the day the Government will get their business, because it is votes that count here at the end of the day, not speeches.
The House knows the position that arises when some hon. Members come into the Chamber late at night. Some of my hon. Friends are very adept at this. They have not listened to the debate, but they make speeches, and then they go home and leave it to others to carry the business forward. Upstairs, in a Committee of 50 or 60 hon. Members, it will not be as easy to do that, whichever side of the House is affected, because the hon. Members concerned will be accountable to other hon. Members in that Committee.
Many of my hon. Friends, with much more experience of Parliament than I have, will agree with me when I say that we must make Parliament effective and able to focus attention on issues, large and small, which are important to our constituents, to the country and to the world. When my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton referred to debates on subjects which do not matter to the country, or are not important, is he talking, for instance, about such debates as that which we had yesterday on the economic situation, when we saw Parliament at its best? Would he not call that important?
Would my hon. Friend not call it important to discuss world poverty, the United Nations, or the war in Vietnam? Are not these subjects which affect us all? I believe that if we saved time by sending the Finance Bill upstairs, the House would be able to use that time more effectively, within hours which are acceptable to hon. Members, and it will not be abused to the extent that is on the Finance Bill.
I accept that the debates on the Selective Employment Tax—I did not take

part in them, although many of my hon. Friends did—were an invaluable Parliamentary exercise. I accept that Corporation Tax and other taxes which are vitally important to vested interests, on one side or the other, are of major importance. But I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that if we have the Finance Bill upstairs, and if there is no attempt to preclude matters being raised which have already been debated in Committee, it will not stop those matters from being fully debated in the House in a concentrated matter.

Sir Stephen McAdden: Would the hon. Member be quite happy if the views of the Managing Director of the I.M.F., as represented in the Finance Bill, were discussable only in Committee and not on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Orme: This will obviously be discussed upstairs, if the Bill is sent upstairs, but there will be opportunities to discuss it on the Floor of the House, after the Committee stage. It will be open to any hon. Member to raise any issue in the House. Having watched with interest the progress of three or four Finance Bills since coming to this place, I have found that most of the business on them is conducted rather like a charade. There are some major debates, but frequently the discussion becomes a time-wasting process. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton that it is the right of every hon. Member to discuss matters in Parliament, but can he object if such opportunities are provided in a representative Committee upstairs. As he said, at the end of the day the Government get their business.

Mr. J. T. Price: My hon. Friend is asking rhetorical questions. He says that an hon. Member with a genuine point to raise can raise it on Report. That is not necessarily so. I need only remind him of the mechanical processes involved in tabling Amendments on Report. They must run the gauntlet of selection by the Chair. If an item which my hon. Friend wished to discuss was rejected by the Chair, that would be the end of the matter and if he attempted to raise it he would be out of order.

Mr. Orme: If it was a matter of some importance—not necessarily of major importance—it would almost certainly be discussed, and if it was the concern of


a number of hon. Members they would see to it that it was raised.
I accept that any reform of our procedure is not an easy thing to achieve. Some experiments were conducted in the last year and, of these, some have proved successful while others have not. The Leader of the House proposes to conduct an experiment. It will be put to the test and it will be open to Parliament to accept or reject it.
A vitally important matter is the method of selection for the Committee, and this has a bearing on making the experiment acceptable to the House. The Whips move in mysterious ways. If I wanted to be a member of the Committee, I would probably not be selected—and if I were it would, for me, be a punishment. I have felt about many Committees that there should be more freedom for hon. Members, both Government and Opposition, to express their views. It is wrong for the Government to "load" Committees for the sake of getting a Bill through, but it is equally wrong for the Opposition to place hon. Members on Committees with the idea of destroying for the sake of destruction. There must be fair representation and much of the success of this experiment will be judged by my hon. Friends on the way this point is handled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton said, some hon. Members have special interests to raise. They must have opportunities to do so.

Sir Douglas Glover: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that, of most of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who spoke in the debate yesterday, probably only one would be on this new Committee?

Mr. Orme: I am not dealing with specific groups, although I agree that other ways of selection for the Committee might be considered. I know that I am speaking to deaf ears on both Front Benches because consensus lurks in this regard. I am speaking as a backbencher, but I hope that I have some support because the need for fair representation is a constitutional matter. I believe that the Leader of the House is aware of the pitfalls that exist and the fact that, if this problem is not tackled thoroughly and adequately, the effectiveness of his proposal might be destroyed.
If my right hon. Friend's series of Amendments to the practices of the House are to be successful, he must secure the success of this proposal because it will act as a turn-key in the whole process of trying to reform our procedure. If he does not prove successful in this respect, he will be dealing with only the periphery of the problem and will not be getting to the heart of the matter. In consequence, we should support this change and allow it to go forward as an experiment.

6.36 p.m.

The First Secretary (Mr. Michael Stewart): I hope that it might be helpful if, at this stage, I dealt with some of the points raised so far. Frankly, I do not intend to spend very long on the suggestion that this is what the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) called an outrage or a sinister plot.
A different proposal was made by the Select Committee. That was a compromise proposal and it was agreed to—because it was a compromise—by members of the Committee who would have preferred something on these lines. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames was himself one of the people who caused that compromise to be rejected. He was quite within his rights in doing that, but he is not within his rights in saying, in effect, "I do not like what the Select Committee proposed and think that it would be wicked for the Government to propose anything else."

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is not this proposal the one which the Government have always wanted in their hearts to bring forward? Are not they simply taking this opportunity to bring it forward and so get what they really want?

Mr. Stewart: It seems odd for the right hon. Gentleman to complain because the Government are bringing forward a proposal which they consider to be right—a proposal from which they would have been prepared to stand aside if the compromise proposal had been agreed. The compromise having been rejected—and by the right hon. Gentleman himself—I do not see why the Government should not bring forward a proposal which they believe to be sound. In any case, I do not think we need waste any time on the


pretence that there is something disreputable about this. I learn from my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) at least indulged in a flirtation with this idea at one stage; and nobody would suggest that he would have flirted with anything disreputable or sinister.
We can now turn to the realities of the argument, and they are serious and powerful, and persuasive speeches have been made on both sides of the argument. A great part of the case against making the change rests on the statement that the Finance Bill is a unique Measure which has an effect on people's economic lives and liberties as no other Bill does. I ask the House to consider some of the things that we have got used to doing in recent years. It is true that the rate of Income Tax is determined in the Finance Bill, but the rate of National Insurance contributions—a matter which affects all citizens, including those too poor to pay Income Tax—we alter by Order in the House.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: On the Floor of the House.

Mr. Stewart: We do it by Order and not even by Statute. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if we proposed to get through the Finance Bill by something like a Statutory Order, that would be all right—as long as we did it on the Floor of the House? My point is that the Finance Bill, although of very great importance, has now to be considered side by side with many other things we do which equally affect the economic lives and the liberties of citizens.
For example, our decisions on the social services affect not only the contributions people pay but whether or not they may live in poverty or be subjected to hardship or degradation. We take decisions about particular industries. Whatever Government are in power, it is now necessary for us to consider a whole range of Government policies towards, say, transport or docks, and these things can affect in a direct, individual manner the workers in those industries, and in an important economic manner the economic lives of the citizens as a whole. Government actions can determine what economic activities are likely to prosper

in particular regions. This is a matter of as much constituency interest to M.Ps as, I would say, anything that is done in the Finance Bill.
I repeat, therefore, that we have got into the habit—perhaps without realising it, but inevitably, because of the society in which we live—of doing a great many things as vital to people's economic lives and to their liberty as are the provisions of the Finance Bill—

Mr. Burden: The right hon. Gentleman is merely illustrating the point that has been made. Each of the cases he has given is rather closely confined so that one can form a committee of experts to deal with it, but the range and scope of the Finance Bill is so enormous that it is difficult, in many instances, to get a sufficiency of experts to deal with the broad range and subjects it touches.

Mr. Stewart: I made the point that these things are not at all confined—their effect is felt all over the country. One of the points made about some of the Clauses of the Finance Bill was that their effects were specially confined to constituency concerns, and that that was why the individual Member ought to be there, but I say that exactly the same is true of many other economic matters we debate; that they can have both a general and a particular effect. Whatever view one may take on a prices and incomes policy, no one can deny that it is a matter as much related to people's economic wellbeing and to their liberty as anything we do in the Finance Bill.
It is a rather remarkable fact that during these recent years when we have begun to do very many things other than the Finance Bill which affect people's standards of life, and even their liberty—while that range of things has been multiplying, the proportion of time we devote on the Floor of the House to the Finance Bill has been increasing. We therefore have to ask: have we got the proportions right? I believe that there is a clamant need for rather more time for the whole House to discuss the whole range of topics to which I have been referring, because they have this enormous economic effect. They affect people's liberties, and I do not think that we have yet found a way of having full enough discussion of them in the House. With all the range of matters affecting


people's economic life and liberty, in the Finance Bill and out, there must be, therefore, some discussion on the Floor of the House and some in Committee.
Have we got the proportions right when, while the number of non-Finance Bill things has been growing the proportion of time on the Floor of the whole House taken up by the Finance Bill has been increasing during that period?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that if this Government—a id all things seem possible—have to introduce a new Bill freezing prices and incomes they will find time for discussion on the Floor of the House and not in Committee?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is not following what I say. When talking to many hon. Members opposite one never knows what they think of a prices and incomes policy, but as some of them believe that they have a prices and incomes policy it is reasonable, whatever one's view, that the House should have proper time to discuss it. I instanced that as one of the things outside the Finance Bill that we must take into account. The hon. Member is trying to make a rather fiddling point which indicates that he has not been following the argument.
That would be my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), who was worried about the use we should make of the time we saved. There are a great many things of vital concern to people in the economic and liberty realms for which it would be very desirable to find, if we can, more time for discussion on the Floor of the House.
There is, then, a legitimate case for asking: is it right, in the present state of history, to devote quite the time to the Finance Bill Committee stage on the Floor of the House that we do at present? Hon. Members have asked whether, if we tamper with the amount of time used on the Floor of the House to deal with the Finance Bill, it will mean that there is not adequate surveillance of that Bill. Let hon. Members notice what there will be in any case. We want surveillance partly to consider the impact of the Finance Bill on the country's major economic problems, and partly to deal with the complexities of the effects on particular industries, regions, or even towns.
For the first, we have four days of Budget debate. We have the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. We have four days for the Report stage. I would also ask the House to remember in this connection my right hon. Friend's proposal about recommittal, which partly answers some of the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton. Then we have the debate on the Third Reading. All that time is still available for the close study of the general impact of the Finance Bill on the country's economy.
For the detailed discussion, our case is that we can certainly get at least as good surveillance in a Standing Committee as in the House itself. It seemed to me that hon. Members who disagreed with that view were seriously underestimating the quality of the work that can be done, and is done, in Standing Committee. I have done a very great deal of Committee work during my time in Parliament. My recollection is that the pressure on a Minister is, to say the very least—

Mr. J. T. Price: Since my right hon. Friend's remark is obviously made in my direction, I must say that I have as much experience of Standing Committees as has any Member of the House of my own vintage. I have served year after year on Standing Committees, and I rather object to this slighting implication that people like me do not know what we are talking about. I know very well what I am talking about.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend must really acquit me of that. Neither in words nor intention was there the smallest wish to say that my hon. Friend was not experienced in this way. We know perfectly well that he is. But nearly every hon. Member who has spoken has referred to his experience of Committees and I did not see why I should not allow myself the same indulgence, particularly when I think of the long hours spent on the infamous Rent Bill in 1956–1957, the London Government Bill, and heaven knows how many other Measures.
My recollection is that criticism of the Minister can, to say the least, be as intense and well directed in Committee as in the House, and it is certainly true that if hon. Members are not lobby fodder in the House, still less are they lobby fodder


in the Committee. We had the instance of the Leasehold Bill, when the only hon. Member opposite who voted with the Government was the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), which indicates a considerable spirit of liberty—

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South): rose—

Mr. Stewart: I am not closing the debate and I do not want to take up too much time, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The right hon. Gentleman has been referring entirely to Committees which meet in the morning, but he is now speaking of a Committee which will sit on three days a week in the afternoon. This by definition would exclude all who are already members of Select Committees and other Committees from taking part in debate on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Stewart: I am coming to that. I do not think this derogates from the quality of discussion in Committee. We must reject phrases like "shoved away in Committee" or, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, "behind the scenes". The Committees will become in public esteem and reporting in the Press what this House chooses to make of them. We know very well that some of them occupy a very considerable place in public notice.

Mr. Grimond: When I said "behind the scenes" I was not referring to the Committee. I said that it might be argued that hon. Members who were not on the Committee could make representations behind the scenes and I did not think that was an alternative to making representations in Committee.

Mr. Stewart: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I think he will agree that there has been a suggestion made in several speeches that if a Bill is sent to Committee upstairs somehow it is being hidden. This is not so, and ought not to be so.
There are often references made to history and the traditions of this House. I feel deeply about this, but I have always felt that it is not loyalty to history to say that one wants things to go on as they

have been because that is the old way of doing them. Someone who says that has no feeling for history. To have a feeling for history means to study how people in the past did things, how ways of doing them have changed, and how far they represent permanent needs of a deliberative assembly.
I have made this reference to history because I think the history of this House shows that the steady growth from centuries back of the power of committees has gone on side by side with influencing the power of Parliament itself. Parliament moved from being a subordinate to a leading body during the reign of the first Elizabeth. It was no accident that during that time it began to use the Committee system increasingly—[An HON. MEMBER: "A Committee of the whole House."]—not exclusively a Committee of the whole House—because it found that in that way—[Interruption.] I said that I have some respect and feeling for the history and traditions of this House. I know that the hon. Member who interrupted does not share it, but a good many of us do. I believe that the lesson of history is that the application of groups of Members to particular problems strengthens the capacity of the House to understand and therefore to act on a problem. That, it seems, is a principle that is of application today.
We are left with one other point I want to refer to which I believe to be the point of greatest substance. It was made in the debate very powerfully by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and taken up most eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates). That is a real problem and it would be quite wrong to suggest that there is not a problem here. It is the problem of the individual back bencher who has an individual point to make. I believe, and I hope I carry the House with me thus far, that there is an important procedural case for moving the Committee stage of the Finance Bill upstairs, that the nature of the age we live in makes this an appropriate step but, like all changes, it creates its own problems and difficulties.
On the next Motion to be debated—and I must say no more so as not to get out of order—this question comes up particularly in view of an Amendment on


the Order Paper. The Government have listened most carefully to this debate and will listen to the forthcoming debate and we will listen very carefully to that particular point. I think we shall have to see—I cannot give any undertaking as to what proposal the Government must finally put to the House—if there is any way of reconciling the point that has been made about the need for back benchers to express themselves individually, and reconciling that with the great advantages that I believe there are for the House as a whole in the change we propose to make.

Mr. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman referred to a back bencher expressing his view. What I was talking about, and what I think the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates) was also talking about, was moving an Amendment or a Motion. If an hon Member is dealing with a problem of a widow or a blind person, it is no good merely expressing a point of view. He has to be on the Committee to move a Motion or an Amendment. That would be excluded by what we cannot discuss at present.

Mr. Stewart: I think I am precluded from answering that point about what can be discussed, but we shall deal with it later. I have in mind all that range of back-bench activity which the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend had in mind. Although we cannot discuss that now, it is something which I hope we may shortly get on to.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Many admirable speeches have been made in this debate and this is a very important issue. I oppose the Motion on grounds of principle and practice. I am not against change in any form. I have said repeatedly that I think it might be possible to send a section of a Finance Bill dealing with very technical tax measures to a Standing Committee, but what I object to is sending the whole Bill there.
I put to the Leader of the House the importance of a consensus in procedural matters. We have heard a lot about consensus between the two Front Benches. I am not talking about that; I am talking of a consensus of all hon. Members wherever they sit in the House. This is

a fundamental change. It has become apparent in this debate not only that the Opposition is bitterly opposed to the proposal, but many Government supporters also have doubts about it. It would be folly for the Government to insist on this change because I do not believe that in that atmosphere it would succeed.
Dealing with the question of breach of faith over the Select Committee's Report, I knew that in that Committee there was deep feeling on the part of many Members against this proposal, so I worked very hard for a compromise, and a compromise proposal came from the Select Committee. In argument and evidence it was described exactly how it would work. There would be what was described as a general agreement, an informal agrement, between the Chancellor and the spokesman on financial matters from the Opposition. For a rough timetable one might say that there would be seven-and-a-half days needed and the other that there should be eight-and-a-half days, so that it would end with eight days being occupied. I realised that it would not be enough for the Government to have to rely on that, so I suggested that there should be the safeguard for the Government that if the agreement was not working out there could be a reserve power.
That compromise became a Sessional Order of the House and the Finance Bill last Session was discussed on the basis of an agreement between the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod). He has given the timings showing what happened and when the last Divisions took place. On the first day it was 10.12 p.m., on the next 11.59 p.m., on the next 11.45 p.m., the next 10.51 p.m., the next 9.53 p.m., the next 11.40 p.m., the next 9.38 p.m. and the last 7.45 p.m. There were not any all-night sittings there. That arrangement worked perfectly well. I therefore think it quite monstrous for the Leader of the House to put this proposal before us.

Mr. Hooley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not quoting a characteristic Finance Bill. Would he not admit that the Budget this year was wholly uncharacteristic, whatever view we take of it in the nature of making substantial proposals or changes in the tax system?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This was the only Finance Bill which operated under the Sessional Order. We find that, with few exceptions, this system worked perfectly well in the past. I think that on only the two occasions of 1952 and 1965 would the sitings on the Finance Bill not fall within this framework. I will deal in a minute with next year's Finance Bill.
The next matter is the evidence of support for this proposal. Lord Butler has been quoted. I submit that paragraph 5 of his memorandum completely destroys the notion that he supported this Standing Order, because he put his finger on one of the difficulties. He said that he did not think a single Standing Committee would be able to deal with the Finance Bill, that it would need two or three to deal with it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West was quoted in some book which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), I think, had written, as having come out in support of this proposal. My right hon. Friend made it clear that he was attracted by the idea, that he thought it ought to be considered, but he decided firmly against it, and the Select Committee of which he was Chairman took the same decision, if not unanimously, almost unanimously. What was not quoted was the testimony which my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) quoted, of how Mr. Gaitskell rejected this proposal when he gave evidence before a Select Committee.
There are certain important questions which have not been answered at all. First, is it the Government's intention to guillotine the Committee stage upstairs? If hon. Members knew the answer to that, it might change their attitude to the proposal. Are there going to be morning sittings of the Standing Committee? If not, why not? We have heard rather more than a rumour that it would be inconvenient to the Treasury if the Committee were to sit in the mornings to deal with the Finance Bill and that, therefore, the sittings will have to be in the afternoons. What about that? Does that mean that anybody who is a member of a Select Committee—there are some very important Select Committees, of two of which I am a member—is debarred from serving on the Standing Committee, or vice versa? Is the Chancellor going to

pop in and out, or will he be a member of the Committee? I shall come to the question of numbers and procedure later.
What about the Recommittal stage? Is there a firm undertaking that there shall be a Recommittal stage? Is it also agreed that after an interval there shall be a Report stage?

Mr. Crossman: I stated this point as precisely as possible. I said that we were prepared to discuss the practical details of working out a Recommittal stage.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: This is a point of principle, because on the Report stage there is no debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill". Therefore, if an Amendment has not been selected, there is no opportunity for an hon. Member to raise a point which otherwise he would have been able to raise.

Mr. Orme: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is now referring to a point that I raised. There is no guarantee that an Amendment will be selected in a debate on the Floor of the House, either.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: When the Committee stage is taken on the Floor of the House there is always a debate on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of a Bill", when it is possible to raise any matter affecting the Clause.

Mr. Orme: Would not the guarantee that my right hon. Friend has given leave this open to discussion?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I heard what the right hon. Gentleman said. He said that he is prepared to have a Recommittal stage and that he is prepared, after a period of time, to have a Report stage. I am glad that we have got that clear.
Then there arises the question: will this proposal save time? One can imagine what will happen during the Committee stage. The matter will be bitterly contested; there is no doubt about that. It is not some technical Bill which will be quietly scrutinised. This will be a bitter struggle within the Committee, very like the struggle on the Iron and Steel Bill but more general.
Then we come to the Recommittal stage, and I am prepared to bet that there will be two all-night sittings then, and I am equally prepared to bet that there will be another two all-night sittings on the


Report stage. All the Government will have done will be to land themselves with an acrimonious stage upstairs and four all-night sittings. That is how it is likely to turn out.
Then I come to the point about the disruption of the business of the House. Taking all these Members away when the House is sitting, meeting in considerable discomfort, the battle going on upstairs with all-night sittings will have a very bad effect on the general morale and hard work of the House itself. On practical grounds, it is a very bad proposal indeed.
A matter of principle is also involved. I believe that the Finance Bill is different from other Bills. I could not have bettered in my description of it the speeches of the hon. Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates) and Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). I think the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies), who ha, not been in the House so long, was very cynical about the procedure of the House, the Committee stage and the proceedings on the Floor of the House. I do not think there is any comparison between the Finance Bill and other Bills. But even if there is, I do not think it is a reason for sending the Finance Bill upstairs. I am not convinced by that argument at all. It is not only a reenactment of existing taxes. It is the enactment of new taxes. It involves structural changes and is an occasion for raising grievances. It is a field where the House can by its collective mood, exercise influence openly and be seen to do so.
I now come to the question of the next Finance Bill, the post-devaluation tax system. I am surprised at the hon. Member for Salford, West, one of the "stubborn seventeen" or, if we include the Tellers, the "naughty nineteen". They will be souped by this proposal. Minorities will go to the wall. There will be no room for minorities on the Standing Committee. I think it is a very bad thing indeed, whether I agree with the hon. Member for Salford, West or not.
What happens in a Standing Committee is nothing like so effective as what happens on the Floor of the House. We had a clear example of the effect on S.E.T.,

applying to charities, which was a direct result of constant pressure on the Floor of the House. This matter affects the powers of minorities; it affects the power of the Opposition; and in the power of minorities—including the largest minority of all, the Opposition—lies much of the strength of Parliament. This is a blow to Parliament born partly of theoretical study, born partly of Ministerial convenience, which those who have made this proposal will bitterly regret. We shall not he bound by the decision and we shall vote against this proposal tonight.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: I have a single point to make, but it is rather different from others which have been raised. It will take me less than three minutes; but first, I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). I do not, as a Tory, congratulate him. I would do nothing so vulgar or patronising. I offer him my homage as a human being and, I hope, as an individualist, as he is. I was very moved by his speech. Well, now, will he be on this Standing Committee upstairs? I doubt it. What he said is exactly what we shall lose.
This proposal, whatever may be said or intended, will sweep the Budget under the carpet and, as such, it is most dangerous and irresponsible.
It is surely essential for us here—all of us—occasionally to be brought face to face in detail with the extreme complication and severity of the measures necessary to pay for the decisions which we have taken all the rest of the year. Already far too many of us here view money as an abstraction—think that we should simply decide what we want, and leave the details of paying for it to others; like children going out shopping and putting things down on their parents' accounts.
The Leader of the House talked about the tedium of the Committee stage. Those were his words. I wrote them down, and I hope that we shall see them in HANSARD tomorrow. It is just those who find the Committee stage tedious who should be made to endure it, those who prefer to discuss ways of spending money rather than ways of raising it. I have no sympathy with those who think that spending is a full-time job.
Surely, it is good that the public should see us treating the Finance Bill seriously. To take away people's money is a serious matter, and the more we take away the more serious it is. We shall insult and mislead the public if we poke the Finance Bill into a corner and—this will be tried sooner or later—try to distract public attention from it by putting on gayer subjects on the Floor of the House. This proposal to sweep the Budget under the carpet is dangerous and irresponsible, and indeed decadent. Of course I oppose it.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: I shall not debate the merits or demerits of the Government's proposal. I wish to raise the question of the machinery of the proposed Committee, particularly as it affects the chairmanship. I have matters to put to the Leader of the House for his consideration.
The question of the chairmanship is important because the chairman of a Standing Committee is a not unimportant part of the Committee, and, very often, the success of a Committee depends upon his ability, his resilience and so forth, during what may well be its long sittings. How is it proposed to appoint a chairman of the proposed new Committee if it is to be taken upstairs? There are at least three ways of doing it.
The chairmanship of such a Committee could be left almost entirely to the Chairman of Ways and Means and his Deputy. However, as this Committee will start in the afternoon, and, no doubt, on some occasions go on into the early hours of the morning or even all night, and as, moreover, the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy Chairman will be required to be on duty at certain times in the House itself, there could be a very considerable strain upon the two right hon. and hon. Gentlemen concerned. That, therefore, seems not to be a good way to organise the chairmanship of such a Committee.
The second way is to do it as we do on most Standing Committees, to appoint one chairman for the whole Committee. The House will recall that this was done, for instance, on the Iron and Steel Bill and the Prices and Incomes Bill, and in those two instances it is well known that a considerable strain was put upon the chair-

man in carrying out his duties efficiently and effectively. Again, one can see difficulties in that procedure under the suggested new system.
The third method, which I commend to the Leader of the House, is to do exactly as we do when the Finance Bill is taken in Committee on the Floor, that is, to leave it to the Chairman of Ways and Means, his Deputy and a rota taken from your Panel of Chairmen, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that this is the best way. I tell the right hon. Gentleman publicly rather than privately that it represents the consensus of opinion, if I may suggest it respectfully, of the Panel of Chairmen, and as such I commend it to him for his consideration.

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If I may say so with respect, it is the consensus of opinion of the Patronage Secretary and myself, too.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: I found neither speech of the Leader of the House nor that of the First Secretary of State convincing in persuading the House that the Finance Bill should be moved upstairs. I see that the First Secretary nods his head, no doubt because he is not surprised to hear by view. What the right hon. Gentleman said in giving examples of Bills which have been taken to a Standing Committee did not disclose a situation which we should applaud but, rather, it implied that for far too long there had been an erosion of the rights of individual Members to be present during the Committee stages of Bills. There has, in effect, been a muzzling of a great many hon. Members who might otherwise have had contributions to make on important matters.

Mr. M. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman says that he was not convinced, and it is painfully clear, also, that he could not have been listening to what I said. I was not talking about Bills which ought to have been sent upstairs but of subjects which ought to be discussed more fully in the House than they are at present. This is why it is reasonable to make a proposal which will give us a bit more time for that kind of subject in the House.

Mr. Burden: If the right hon. Gentleman will be patient, he will hear me come


to the point which he has now raised. The Government seem to have the impression that the Finance Bill clutters up the business of the House and that if they could get it out of the Chamber they could introduce all sorts of subjects which might be convenient. There is an important consideration to be borne in mind here. I absolve the Government of any sinister motive in the matter, but the statement made by both the First Secretary of State and the Leader of the House that if the Finance Bill goes to a Standing Committee the newspapers will take an interest in what is going on, its proceedings will be reported and will probably get as much Press coverage as before, cannot be left there. It is quite likely to prove otherwise.
If a difficult passage was likely in the Standing Committee, the Government could introduce a debate on the Floor, about which there might even be a division within the Government, and this might well attract all attention away from what was going on in the Committee. This would be in the interests of neither the House nor the country.
Whatever the Government may say, only 50 or 60 Members will now be dealing with a highly complex and complicated Bill, a Bill unlike any other coming before the House in scope and effect. 'Whatever may be said about other Bills, about the Iron and Steel Bill or the Transport Bill, there is no doubt that it is far simpler to appoint a neat Committee of Members specialising in a particular subject than it is on the Finance Bill, which ranges over so many fundamental subjects and influences the lives of so many people.
There may be no sinister intention at the outset, but a sinister intention might come in here at a later stage. Plainly, it will be extremely convenient for the Government if the next Finance Bill goes upstairs. The Chancellor has already warned us that the Budget will be tough and difficult. The Government received a lot of criticism only this week, when 19 hon. Members, including the Tellers, went into the Lobby to vote against them. Those hon. Members disagreed strongly with the Government's policies, and they have made perfectly clear that, if the next. Budget is a really tough one, they will have some very harsh things to say against the Government.
Does any hon. Member really think that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) or the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) will be put on the Committee to consider the Finance Bill upstairs and to criticise the Government and possibly vote against them? Certainly not. It is much more probable that a very convenient subject will be brought up for debate in the House, which would confine them to the benches here, and they will have no opportunity to express their sincere dislike of the Finance Bill and move Amendments to it upstairs.
If the Government are honest about this, they will admit that certain of the hon. Members who voted against the Government yesterday would be the last people in the world to be on the Finance Bill Committee. But if the Committee stage is held on the Floor of the House those right hon. and hon. Members opposite who oppose the Government, and who, I believe, include some ex-Ministers, will have every opportunity to express their point of view.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Would my hon. Friend consider that possibly the only hope that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and others might have of getting on the Committee would be to inform the Patronage Secretary that if they were not on it they might seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are still hon. Members who have been waiting all day to enter the debate. Let us keep to the subject.

Mr. Burden: We are told that the Committee stage upstairs will be prolonged and arduous, lasting for 72 hours—nine days of eight hours a day—and will range over a wide area. Do the Government hope that by selecting hon. Members to serve in a Standing Committee upstairs they will get through it much more quickly? Right hon. and hon. Members from this side of the House will ensure that the Finance Bill upstairs is given as much scrutiny as was the Iron and Steel Bill, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will not be rushed through, if that is the intention.
The strain on the members of the Standing Committee will be very considerable. There will probably be all-night sittings. When the Committee stage


of the Finance Bill is on the Floor of the House there is no such strain on hon. Members, because we have Division bells and time to get to Divisions. Hon. Members can come into the House to debate subjects of interest to them, and when the subject being debated does not interest them they can go elsewhere to relax. They can even "pair", but matters will not be so easy for the members of the Committee upstairs. Therefore, although the proposal is aimed at creating more convenience for the House generally, it will impose far greater hardship on those hon. Members serving on the Standing Committee.
There is no obvious reason why the total time taken on the Finance Bill should be in any way diminished. If I am correct in my assumption about some hon. Members opposite who might strongly disagree with some of the Government's proposals, the Government might well find that there are prolonged sittings on the Report stage. There could be several all-night sittings so that we should have not a greater easing of hon. Members' time but a much greater hardship imposed on them if the Bill went upstairs.

7.25 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I am very grateful to have caught your eye in this very important debate, Mr. Speaker.
I think that the Leader of the House is accident-prone. All his schemes for the modernisation of our procedure, designed to reduce the number of hours we work, seem inevitably to end in us all working longer hours than before. Last night, under the new Standing Order No. 9, I understand that the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman has waited a long time to speak, but he must talk about the Motion.

Sir D. Glover: I should like to ask some questions about it. I understand that the Leader of the House has mentioned 50 as the membership of the Standing Committee. That is the figure in people's minds. My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), who is an experienced member of the Chairmen's Panel, suggested—and I saw the right hon. Gentleman nod his head—that

the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Deputy Chairman and the members of the Chairmen's Panel would take the Chair. But, unless we produce special new rules that do not apply elsewhere for the Committee, they will all have to be included in the 50 members. Otherwise, the whole of the Chairman's Panel and the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, totalling more than a dozen, would have to be taken out of the 50 members of the Committee. The Opposition, making up perhaps a third of the remainder, would have only about 12 or 14 members in a Committee dealing with one of the most important problems, if not the most important problem, with which the House deals in a year. That is the first practical point that must be ironed out if the proposal comes into effect.
Secondly, I understand why the Committee may have to meet in the afternoon. But if it does, no Member serving on it will be able to enter the Chamber for three or four weeks during the time it is sitting. There is no reason why the rules should not be altered, as it will be a special Committee, but at present only one minute is allowed for a Division, and no Member could get from Committee Room 14 to the Chamber to hear a statement, do important business, or listen to a major debate, in case a Division was called upstairs.

Mr. Crossman: To relieve the hon. Gentleman's mind, I should like to say straight away that we are aware of the question of the time for Divisions, and it will certainly have to be dealt with.

Sir D. Glover: With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it is a pity that some of the practical problems were not stated in his speech or that of the First Secretary of State. If these problems are already seized of by the right hon. Gentleman, and if the Government have a solution, the House should know that solution before it votes on the matter.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will also tell me what he proposes to do about the chairmanship of the Committee, because that is a very vital problem that must be solved. I am not sure that the House should take a decision tonight on a Committee which will apparently have about 12 chairmen out of its 50


members. When the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) enters the Division Lobbies tonight that is what he will be voting for, because right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench nodded their heads and said, "Yes, that is a good idea. That is how the Chair should be manned in the Committee".
When the hon. Member goes into the Lobby, he might as well realise that he is voting not for a Committee of 50 but for a Committee of about 36. Let him bear in mind that he will probably spend more o his time in the House on the Opposition than on the Government benches. If he gets on to the Committee, he will be one of the lonely 12. What chance has the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) of getting on to the Committee as one of the lonely 12? He would not even make it if he was able to say to the Patronage Secretary, "We have 17 supporters in the House", because he would be told that nobody qualified for the Committee who did not have 50 supporters in the House, because that is the size of the allocation. If the hon. Members who instigated the emergency debate yesterday imagine that that sort of thing can be done in the Committee, that is the last place where that sort of debate will take place.
The Finance Bill is different from all other Bills. This has been said ad nauseam, but it is different in this way. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Fool) is always saying that we ought to have great, far-reaching debates in the House of Commons. During the Committee stage of the Finance Bill we have some of the most wide-ranging debates on certain subjects in the Bill. It is not as though we spend eight or nine days discussing the same thing the whole time. We probably spend a full day on Corporation Tax and, perhaps, another day on Selective Employment Tax. Each of those is as big a subject as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale is likely to get on a day which is allocated by the Government for some far-reaching debate.

Mr. Costain: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the logical proposal after a panel of Chairmen is a panel of Committees, so that we can each cover our special subjects?

Sir D. Glover: I would not like to get drawn into that one.
I am speaking very much as somebody who loves the House of Commons. We are in great danger of doing the House of Commons enormous damage. We are not sent to this House merely to speak in far-ranging debates. It is only the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale who has the eloquence to capture the House when we have those debates. When most other hon. Members speak, everybody else walks out, but the practical problems of our constituents are all the time relevant to the Finance Bill, and we do not get a better opportunity during the year. Those are the opportunities when those of us who do not have the eloquence of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale can at least do something practical to deal with our constituents' problems.
One hon. Member has said that we are sent here from our constituencies not as Conservative or Labour. There is great controversy about it, but we are not allowed to state our party label on the ballot papers. Every Member of the House is sent here as an independent Member. If he is an independent Member, it is implicit in our constitution that his first duty is not to his party but to his constituents, long before his party loyalties and long before dividing up the Committee into neat rows of loyalists for the Government and for the Opposition.
A Member's first responsibility in the Committee or on the Floor of the House is to his constituents. Under the proposed procedure, how will he be able to look after the problems of his constituents? If we are to have recommittal, about which the Lord President of the Council has been very cagey, will it be one day, two days or three days? If the right hon. Gentleman is to satisfy his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West, it will take at least three days to enable his hon. Friend to raise in Committee, if he were a member, the points that he would like to have raised on the Floor of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we should have four days on Report which, added to the time for recommittal, makes seven days. Under those conditions, how much time will the right hon. Gentleman save? [HON. MEMBERS: "None."] Yes, probably none, perhaps two days, but they will be two days saved at the complete sacrifice of the whole 630 Members who have the right to criticise


the Government in detail in Committee on each Clause of the Finance Bill.
If this proposal is passed tonight it will not be an improvement in our procedure. It will again lower the status of the back-

bencher, and we shall find that we damage the House of Commons if we pass this proposal.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 136.

Division No. 11.]
AYES
[7.35 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ford, Ben
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Alldritt, Walter
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Anderson, Donald
Freeson, Reginald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Archer, Peter
Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Armstrong, Ernest
Garrett, W. E.
Moyle, Roland


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ginsburg, David
Neal, Harold


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Gourlay, Harry
Norwood, Christopher


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Ogden, Eric


Barnes, Michael
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
O'Malley, Brian


Barnett, Joel
Gregory, Arnold
Orbach, Maurice


Bence, Cyril
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Orme, Stanley


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Oswald, Thomas


Binns, John
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Blackburn, F.
Hamling, William
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hannan, William
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harper, Joseph
Park, Trevor


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Boyden, James
Haseldine, Norman
Pavitt, Laurence


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hattersley, Roy
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bradley, Tom
Hazell, Bert
Pentland, Norman


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Price, William (Rugby)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hooley, Frank
Randall, Harry


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Horner, John
Rees, Merlyn


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Harry (Welling borough)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp' burn)
Huckfield, Leslie
Rose, Paul


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Rt. Hn, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Sheldon, Robert


Coe, Denis
Hunter, Adam
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Conlan, Bernard
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Corbert, Mrs. Freda
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Joseph


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Small, William


Dalyell, Tam
Kenyon, Clifford
Spriggs, Leslie


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lawson, George
Storehouse, John


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Lee, John (Reading)
Swain, Thomas


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thornton, Ernest


Delargy, Hugh
Lipton, Marcus
Tinn, James


Dell, Edmund
Lomas, Kenneth
Tomney, Frank


Dempsey, James
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Tuck, Raphael


Dewar, Donald
McBride, Neil
Urwin, T. W.


Dickens, James
MacColl, James
Varley, Eric G.


Doig, Peter
Macdonald, A. H.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunnett, Jack
McGuire, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Wallace, George


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mackintosh, John P.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Eadie, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Wellbeloved, James


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Whitaker, Ben


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ellis, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


English, Michael
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Ennals, David
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Ensor, David
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Maxwell, Robert
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Faulds, Andrew
Mendelson, J. J.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Fernyhough, E.
Millan, Bruce
Woof, Robert


Finch, Harold
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Yates, Victor


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)



Foley, Maurice
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Moonman, Eric
Mr. W. Howie and




Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Astor, John
Hiley, Joseph
Pym, Francis


Baker, W. H. K.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bessell, Peter
Hooson, Emlyn
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Boardman, Tom
Hornby, Richard
Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Body, Richard
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Royle, Anthony


Buchanan-Smith, Alick( Angus, N &amp; M)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Scott, Nicholas


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sharples, Richard


Burden, F. A.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Silvester, Frederick


Campbell, Gordon
Kimball, Marcus
Sinclair, Sir George


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, John


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Stainton, Keith


Channon, H. P. G.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Clegg, Walter
Lane, David
Stodart, Anthony


Cooke, Robert
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Costain, A, P.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor. Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lubbock, Eric
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Davidson, James( Aberdeenshire, W.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maddan, Martin
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Emery, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Vickers, Dame Joan


Errington, Sir Eric
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Eyre, Reginald
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S, L. C.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Farr, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Walters, Dennis


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper
Ward, Dame Irene


Foster, Sir John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Weatherill, Bernard


Fraser, Rt. Mn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Webster, David


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Murton, Oscar
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gower, Raymond
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Grant, Anthony
Neave, Airey
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Grieve, Percy
Nott, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Onslow, Cranley
Worsley, Marcus


Gurden, Harold
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wylie, N. R.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Younger, Hn. George


Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)



Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Hector Monro and


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Heseltine, Michael
Prior, J. M. L.

Resolved,
That Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of bills) be amended as follows:
Line 1, leave out 'a bill for imposing taxes or'.

Standing Order No. 68 (Attendance of Law Officers in Standing Committees)


That Standing Order No. 68 (Attendance of law officers in standing committees) be amended as follows:


Line 8, at end add—


(2) In a standing committee which is to consider a bill brought in upon a Ways and Means resolution any Minister of the Crown, being a Member of this House, though not a member of the standing committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum.

Under the Standing Order as it is at present, Law Officers may attend a Standing Committee though they are not members of it. We now suggest that we should extend this to cover any Minister whose presence is necessary at the Finance Bill Standing Committee upstairs in order to cover points of the Bill which may affect his Department. I am sure that this Motion is for the convenience of the House and for the future Standing

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: I beg to move,

Committee and will be welcomed by the Opposition.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move, in line 5, leave out
'Minister of the Crown, being a'.
The Amendment would mean that the facility for Ministers to go into the Standing Committee and take part in its proceedings without being part of the voting


strength or the quorum strength should be enjoyed by all hon. Members. It is appropriate, in a sense, that the Amendment should be sponsored by the Liberal Party because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said earlier, we have not really had a satisfactory answer from the Government about the position of minorities in the House which will occur after the new procedure of sending the Finance Bill into Committee upstairs comes into effect.
I am not just thinking of the minority within the Government party of 17 or 18, whatever it may be from time to time, but more particularly of the rights of the individual hon. Member. In a sense, each of us is a minority. Each of us is anxious to protect his constituency interests and each of the other 629 Members is anxious that one should get on with it so that he can protect his own constituency interests. In that sense, each of us is in a minority of one.
Under the old procedure, it has always been the right of an individual Member on the Floor of the House to be able to raise on the Finance Bill any matter relating to taxation which may be of constituency interest. That facility will now go by the board, obviously, except for the lucky members of the new Committee.
Then there is the position of the minorities of one, such as the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans). To be fair, they are not expressing a constituency interest but a particular political point of view, which may have great relevance to taxation for Scotland and Wales. To be fair to that view, each of them should be automatically on the Committee. The Liberal Party, with its present 12 Members, has always taken an active part in the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), whose kindness to the Liberal Party I have never noticed in the past, went out of his way to pay tribute to the work which we had done in seeking to make Amendments to the Selective Employment Tax.

Mr. Michael Foot: That was unusual.

Mr. Steel: I agree that it was unusual. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I took them kindly.
If we in the Liberal Party are to continue this work in the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, it would be unreasonable to expect the whole load to fall on one Member, our normal allocation to a Standing Committee. This amount of work simply could not be done by one Member hour after hour, day in and day out, and week in and week out. We would therefore have to have at least two and if there were the two Members from the nationalist parties and two from the Liberal Party, leaving only 46 other places, Conservative and Labour Members could justifiably say that the minorities had an undue proportion of the seats on the Committee.
The question is how to get round that difficulty. The answer lies in having someone else able to make the arguments in Committee. I must admit at once that the Amendment may not be technically the right way around the difficulty, but it points the way. It is not some sort of hairbrained scheme suddenly thought up on the Liberal bench. I draw the attention of the House to the evidence given to those of us who served on the Select Committee on Procedure by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He said:
I am all in favour, therefore, of a kind of procedure which is patent and clear to the Members. I think this can best be achieved by having a stable kernel of membership. But there would of necessity have to be added to that, both, if I may say so, on the ministerial side as well as on the membership side, those individuals, whether Ministers or Members, who have a contribution to make and have taken considerable interest in special sections of the Bill and who would be far too numerous to accommodate in a stable kernel of membership. I should have thought, therefore, what might be considered would be a speaking membership of those who wished to speak as opposed to a voting membership which would be the stable membership.
This, therefore, was a proposal which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury himself put forward.
The principle behind the Amendment has already been accepted for Law Officers and the Motion now proposes to extend it to Ministers. It is also accepted practice on local authorities where a member who is not a member of a committee has the right to move motions or


take part in the debates in that committee without being a voting member of it. This is therefore a principle already established in local government.

Mr. C. Pannell: I have peculiar experience of this matter. The practice of local authorities where there is such a practice—and it is a matter for the individual decision of the authority—is that some authorities allow members to go to committees of which they are not members and to speak, but never to vote and never to move a motion.

Mr. Steel: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. That is exactly the position which our Amendment would create. Hon. Members would be entitled to speak but not entitled to vote if they were not members of the Committee. This principle is known to us in our system of government generally.
I questioned the Chief Secretary about this idea at Question No. 56. He was of the view that the way in which to control this practice so that the Committee would not be completely flooded by all 630 Members would be to say that those entitled to speak would be only those who had put their names to Amendments. They would be those who had already indicated their interest. My question to the right hon. Gentleman was:
You imagine all those who put their names to an amendment would be entitled to speak?
The Chief Secretary replied:
It is for this Committee, it is not peculiarly a Treasury matter, to decide, but in my own personal view I would want to see everybody having the right to speak who had the right to speak downstairs …
That is the principle which lies behind the Amendment.
We then had the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman the Patronage Secretary. We questioned him on the proposal which had been put to us by the Chief Secretary and in his evidence when referring to this suggestion the Patronage Secretary said:
I think it could be done. I also, I must confess, am not 100 per cent. sold on this idea.
He said later:
I do not see any technical difficulty in it.
This matter has therefore been at least superficially discussed and brought forward by a. Treasury Minister and by someone partly responsible for the conduct of the House. It is not an idea which has been dreamed up as some sort of fanciful

suggestion. It is a suggestion which should be seriously considered.
In his evidence the Government Chief Whip took the line that he was not wholly satisfied with this proposal, because he thought that the matter was covered by allowing longer Report stages. It is not taken care of that way. Nor is the Leader of the House in a position to assure us, because the selection of Amendments tabled for Report is a matter for Mr. Speaker and we have no assurance that the practice of the House, which, generally speaking, is for those Amendments which have been discussed in Committee not to be selected on Report, will be changed. We are merely to have a longer Report stage, but there is no guarantee that the range of subjects open for discussion by ordinary hon. Members will be anything like the equivalent of what we are losing by sending the Bill upstairs from the Floor of the House. We cannot regard the lengthening of the Report stage as an alternative to my suggestion.
By the Motion the Leader of the House has recognised that there is a difficulty in restricting the Finance Bill to a Standing Committee of 50 Members and he has done so by saying that it would be inconvenient if the Committee included all the Ministers who might want to take part and whose inclusion would take an undue proportion of the Committee while, on the other hand, to leave out some whose expertise might be needed would also be inconvenient. He has therefore provided that any Minister shall be allowed to speak to the Committee.
The Leader of the House is one of those who for many years have been concerned with the balance of the power of the Executive and the power of Parliament, but by moving the Motion he is tilting the balance further to the advantage of the Executive, because he is recognising the difficulty and saying that for the convenience of the Executive the Government will get round the difficulty, but will not draft the Motion in such a way as to cover the objections which ordinary hon. Members feel to the whole process of taking the Committee upstairs.
I therefore appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Motion after this debate and to give the matter more serious thought and to come forward with his own proposals later, so that other


hon. Members can address the Committee as and when required. I am not one of those who join in the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, because, if he did nothing, he would not be criticised. He is trying to make Parliament work more smoothly and basically I am sympathetic to the objective of getting the Finance Bill into a Standing Committee, but the basic rights which we have always had must not be lost. I am satisfied that we can find methods of safeguarding those rights while at the same time realising the objective of saving time on the Floor of the House.
In all these discussions we suffer basically from one fact. When the 1911 Parliament Act for reforming the House of Lords was going through, someone said that we were slapping a bucket of whitewash over a structure which was riddled with dry rot. We are not by these changes facing the basic problem, which is that the power of Government and the rôle of Government under all parties has increased over the decades and is still increasing. If we are to make Parliament an effective place to control the growing power of the Executive, then we cannot do it within the existing structures and we cannot do it by Motions of this kind.
Because my party believes that, not only shall we press the Amendment, unless the Leader of the House agrees to withdraw his Motion, but later we shall vote against the suspension of the rule on the ground that the Government are not giving serious thought to the structure of Parliament, to the question of decentralisation or to the question of proper reform of the Upper House, which we think is absolutely essential.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The original Question was that Standing Order No. 68 be amended as on the Order Paper, since when an Amendment has been moved, in line 5, to leave out "Minister of the Crown, being a". The question is, That that Amendment be made.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Am I to understand, Sir Eric, that we are simply discussing the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), or are we discussing also the Motion moved by the Leader of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient to discuss the two together. It would be inconvenient to limit the debate to the narrow confines of the Amendment. Therefore, if it be the wish of the House, I suggest that the debate should range over the main Motion and the Amendment.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am wholly opposed to both the Amendment and the Government's Motion. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) is more logical, but his proposal is even more objectionable because as a result of it more people would be wandering in and out of the Committee. I cannot conceive a more inconvenient arrangement. I think that the Leader of the House should consult the Patronage Secretary, who had some sensible ideas on this matter when he gave evidence before the Select Committee.
After the answer in which he said that two or three extra days should be devoted to the Report stage, I said to him in Question No. 152:
I notice that you of the 'visitors' going the committee stage Amendments and not think there is much in that?
The right hon. Gentleman said:
I think it can be done.
I then said:
You do not like it very much?".
The answer was:
I do not particularly like it. I am bound to say this is something that is so novel; everything that has been suggested heretofore does fit into a previous pattern that has been done with some other Bill and so on. It may be that we could eventually accept as a House something of this sort, but I do not think we are ready for it now. Almost I prefer the idea that I think is used at Strasbourg of having substitute Members. It seems to me the idea of Members who can speak but not vote is the one that is a little outside our experience. That is what worries me really".
I said:
May I suggest to you that it really would make almost a farce of our procedure if people could drift in and out without having responsibility for voting?
The Patronage Secretary said:
I would not be very happy about it.
How right he was. I cannot think of anything more inconvenient. The enunciatory system does not tell us what is


going on in a Standing Committee. Nobody would know what was happening or whether there were ten, 15, or 20 "visitors" drifting in and out. I cannot conceive of anything more inconvenient.

Mr. Crossman: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman referring to the Government's proposal, or the Liberal proposal, or both?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman did not hear the Chairman's suggestion that we should discuss the Motion and Amendment together. I said at the outset that I thought that the Liberal Amendment was more logical but even more objectionable because more "visitors" would go in and out of the Committee. I object to both the Amendment and the Motion.
This shows the difficulty which the Government are getting themselves into, Are they to try to make the Committee stage upstairs an adequate substitute for the debate on the Floor of the House? If so, it seems to me that they should have a Committee of 160 Members with adequate ministerial representation—an awful prospect—but with some possibility of its being a substitute for debate on the Floor of the House, with its members being able to act in the same way as on the Floor of the House.
There are all sorts of practical difficulties in the proposal. I should be probably wholly against it. If the Government are trying to make this a sort of Committee stage on the Floor of the House they must recast the proposal. On the other hand, they have conceded under pressure that they think that having sent the Bill upstairs and having the battle up there between the small bands of gladiators on each side, by recommitting the Bill and by giving a longer time for the Report stage, every hon. Member will therefore be able to take part in the Recommittal stage and Report stage. If we have "visitors" wandering about upstairs, this will affect the new Report stage. The debates in the Chamber will depend on how many "visitors" have been talking on a particular point.
The right hon. Gentleman is falling between two stools. Either he must have a very large Committee upstairs consisting of people who are entitled to vote,

and not have a long Report stage, or—and this is the better choice in a proposal of which I completely disapprove—make the Recommittal stage and Report stage as comprehensive as possible. If we have this sort of nondescript business upstairs of people wandering in and out and making speeches without notice and nobody knowing what they are talking about it will affect what takes place on the Floor of the House. This is not a reform. It is one of those changes of which the right hon. Gentleman is fond, and it is a change for the worse.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), I am opposed to both the Government's Motion and the Liberal Amendment. I feel some regret about the latter because I recognise that the intention is to try to diminish the serious damage which has been done to the House by the proposal which it has just accepted. However, I am forced to the conclusion that it would not rectify any of the damage done. The Government's proposal, which we seek to amend simply by extending its scope to all hon. Members, contains the words:
… but shall not vote or make any Motion or move any amendment, or be counted in the quorum".
If the object is to meet the point which was made in the earlier debate about the necessity of providing that hon. Members have the opportunity, particularly on the Committee stage of the Finance Bill but also on other Measures, to protect the individual rights and interests of their constituents, then I do not believe that this is enough. If one cannot move an Amendment, one cannot make sure that a point affecting one's constituents is ventilated.

Mr. David Steel: I entirely accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. That is why I said that I did not think that our Amendment was entirely satisfactory, and that is why I appealed to the Leader of the House to withdraw his Motion.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that. I have great respect for his judgment. I am glad that his view coincides with mine. This proposal, as it stands, is completely inadequate to do what the hon. Gentleman seeks to do.
I hope that the Leader of the House will adopt a similarly conciliatory attitude about his proposal and will indicate a similar willingness to withdraw the Motion. I am very much against the idea that Ministers, in general, should be able to attend Standing Committees of which they are not members and speak. I accept that there is the present very proper exception in respect of the Law Officers. But they are in a special position. They are, to some extent, detached from the Government and have the duty which all Law Officers, including the present holders of the office, have always accepted of advising the House generally on the law, even though their advice may tend against the interests of the Government of the day. They are, in truth, the legal advisers of the House and they can be extremely helpful when a difficult point of law arises in Standing Committee which the Minister is unable to explain. The position is, however, entirely different in respect of the remaining Ministers.
This proposal is designed to facilitate, perhaps, a senior Minister coming in, making a leading speech, and then going off, leaving his unfortunate Under-Secretary of State to clear up the remains. That is not a satisfactory way in which to treat a Standing Committee. Nor is it a practice which is likely to conduce to a Minister's adopting a reasonable attitude towards Amendments.
Those who have spent a good deal of time in Standing Committees, as I have, know that such a Committee develops a kind of entity in itself and that a Minister who is a Member of it and attends regularly gets the feel of a Standing Committee—and, incidentally, gets his Bill through much more quickly. He also understands those points in respect of which it would be reasonable to make a concession. The Minister who just appears, makes a speech, looks at his watch and says, "I am sorry, but I must he off for another gathering ", is not subject to the corporate feeling of a Standing Committee or the influences upon him which would induce him to make concessions.
It is much easier to go away, telling one's Under-Secretary to stand firm, than it is for oneself to stay and listen to all the arguments—perhaps from hon. Mem-

bers on both sides of the Committee—and then to come to the view that a concession should be made. This proposal will weaken the effectiveness of Standing Committees and reduce the number of occasions on which concessions are made during the examination of a Bill by a Standing Committee.
When we were debating an earlier Motion we heard a great deal about the value of Standing Committees—about the close-knit, technical, expert analysis which, according to the Leader of the House, a Standing Committee could carry out. How could a Standing Committee do that effectively if the promoter of the Measure—a senior Minister—was not there, and when arrangements had been made for him not to need to be there, so that he could absent himself without the slightest effect on the numbers available in Committee?
The Leader of the House has considerable experience of Standing Committees. He will recall that on what became the Rent Act there was a good deal of unhappiness in the Committee about his fairly frequent absences—although it k fair to say that, on the whole, they rather accelerated the progress of the Bill. For that reason he should understand that members of a Standing Committee like to have a Minister there to listen to the arguments as a constituent member of the Committee, and not to attend as a kind of great power coming from outside and delivering an occasional harangue.
It is because I believe that this proposal will weaken the effectiveness of Standing Committees and to some extent spoil the good atmosphere which develops in many of them that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will follow the example of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles and withdraw his proposal.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Hooley: I was very interested in what the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said about Committees developing a kind of atmosphere or entity of their own. That is the point which, in my own blundering way, I tried to make earlier today. It is an extremely important point. To my mind this is the value of the change that we have just approved in connection with Finance Bills. The point of handing business to a small body, or Committee, is


that one gets the corporate intelligence of the Members of the Committee concentrated on the immediate issues, and by a process of dialogue one arrives at a more sensible conclusion than can be arrived at when detailed matters are dealt with in more general debates on the Floor of the House.
Although the Liberal proposal has certain superficial attractions it would undermine and destroy the value of a Committee, as a Committee. If anybody could drift in and out, make a harangue, and go away the whole tenor of discussion would be interrupted, quite apart from the question of inconvenience to Members of the Committee, who would have to sit there throughout the whole of the proceedings listening to a series of people who rolled along, made a point and went away. The Liberal proposal is not practical.
The question of Ministers coming in is much more analogous to the situation in which a Committee may seek expert advice from a certain individual at its own request. This is quite a different matter from giving an individual a right to roll along and hold forth. If a Minister is there he is presumably there for a specific purpose, or to deal with a specific topic.
I hope that the proposal would be strong enough for the Committee itself to decide whether or not a Minister should he there. I am not sure whether the question may or may not rest with the Chairman. But there seems to be a distinction between inviting a person to give special evidence on a certain issue and giving a right to any Member of the House to roll along and make a speech.
Implicit in our discussions there seems to be an assumption that every Member of the House has an absolute right to speak on any matter on which it seems to him to be necessary to speak, affecting his constituency or anything else. In practice this is not so. There are many occasions on which individual Members may wish to speak on certain points but, under the practice or procedure of the House, are not called and have no opportunity to make those points. As far as I know there has never been implicit in our procedure in the House any right of a Member to speak on a certain issue.

Mr. Victor Yates: My hon. Friend must realise that the practice of the

House has been that any Member of the House in Committee on the Finance Bill may speak.

Mr. Hooley: With great respect to my hon. Friend, if the debate is closed, a Member's right is lost. He may not have been called, and if the Closure is accepted there is no right for him to speak. I have witnessed a situation in which many hon. Members wanted to hold forth on a certain subject and when the Closure was moved and accepted and they lost their opportunity. It is wrong to pretend that there is an absolute, inviolable right of a Member to speak on a matter that he wants to speak on, irrespective of what is happening in the House. It is nonsense to pretend that this is so, and for the purpose of this argument it is no use pretending it is so.
As I have said, there are superficial attractions about the Liberal proposal, but in practice it would not work. It would be damaging to the kind of reform that my right hon. Friend has succeeded in getting the House to accept, and which I strongly support.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Grimond: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), who moved the Amendment in such an admirable speech, I want to see the reform of our procedure go a great deal further. As I have said before, all that has happened greatly strengthens the case for self-government for Scotland and Wales, but we are bound to stick to the more modest proposal, which are before us.
I believe that we have already got some measure of broad agreement, first, that the present handling of the Finance Bill is not very satisfactory, and, second, that it is desirable that we should safeguard the rights of Members who are particularly affected by the proposals of the Bill in a certain year. Our purpose is to try to find a way in which these two desirable ends can be reconciled.
I want to answer some of the objections that have been raised by hon. Members on this side of the House. First, I agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) about the drafting of the Liberal Amendment. It should make it possible for any Member to move a Motion or an Amendment, and should not make it impossible for


him to do so. My hon. Friend made that clear, but we do not wish to withdraw the idea entirely.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's further point, that it is undesirable for Ministers to be allowed access to a Committee of which they are not members, I think that we must look at the Committee as a new sort of Committee and not treat it simply as one of the ordinary Standing Committees. That will not do. If we do not want a new sort of Committee, that is a different matter, but to apply the criteria of an ordinary Standing Committee to this Committee, which in certain years may range over the widest spectrum of subjects, is impossible. That is one of the difficulties about the Committee. Nevertheless, it is on that basis that we must consider it.
In some years it may be essential for the President of the Board of Trade or the Secretary of State for Scotland to be allowed to appear in the Committee. If there are particular measures—

Mr. Grant-Ferris: It occurs to me and may have occurred to the right hon. Gentleman that it might be very convenient for the Government of the day that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not be a member of the Committee, because he was wanted elsewhere, and it might be necessary to have only one Treasury Minister actually a member. That is not exactly the right hon. Gentleman's intention and perhaps he would comment on it.

Mr. Grimond: Perhaps the Leader of the House will tell us later whether the Government intend to have the Chancellor as a permanent member of the Committee. I agree that this is an important point. It could be necessary on this type of Committee to be free to call upon other Ministers. This brings us to the point that it is very difficult to tell in advance from year to year what the Finance Bill will contain. We want some procedure which will allow the formation or composition of the Committee to be varied accordingly.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates) said, one Finance Bill contained many changes in Purchase Tax, and many back benchers rightly wanted to speak in the debate.

There have been others in which this was not the case and I would like to hear whether the Leader of the House sees this as a permanent arrangement or will allow some flexibility in the Standing Orders to allow it to be varied.
If we are to have it at all, it is difficult to avoid allowing Ministers who are not permanent members to attend. If it sits in the afternoon, some of the Treasury Ministers may be required for general debates in the House while it is sitting, so all the Treasury Ministers could not be members, especially as I think it will go on a very long time in the afternoon.
I turn now to the objections of the right hon. and learned Member for the Wirrall (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who, with his usual clarity, said that the Government Amendment is illogical and deplorable and that ours is logical and most deplorable. At any rate that makes his position clear. But we cannot accept this terrible picture of the whole of the top of this building filled with milling Members drifting in and out of Committees all afternoon. I fear that many hon. Members will not go near it. The view that they will be clamouring to get in is somewhat unlikely.
A process lasting for six weeks in the height of summer, from 2 o'clock to 10 o'clock and sometimes all night, will be a formidable undertaking and I fear that this will put a great deal of power in the hands of the Whips, who will be able to make appointments to the Committee of those whom they do not approve of. This picture of half the House of Commons drifting in and out of the Committee room and swamping all the business is not a serious objection to our proposal.
Nor is the objection insuperable that it would be inconvenient. This is a constant difficulty now, and many hon. Members have to spend all afternoon waiting for Amendments to the Finance Bill when it is on the Floor of the House. Perhaps we could have indicators put up to show what is going on in the Committee.
A more serious objection is whether, having moved a Motion or an Amendment, an hon. Member is to be allowed to ask for a vote, and the question of what control he will have over a vote. This is an objection but it is not fundamental. I agree that it is a departure


from our procedures, although, as the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said, law officers are already allowed to attend a Committee. If we are to have the Committee at all, we must think in new terms, and if we are to reconcile the two points which I thought were agreed earlier, that we want reform of the Finance Bill and that hon. Members should have a chance to take part if they want to, we must consider this solution. If there are better ones, they should be put forward.
The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral said that a better solution would he to extend the Report stage, but he himself, in a previous incarnation this afternoon, knocked down this argument by saying that if there were a really adequate Report stage no time would he saved and we should simply transfer all the Committee proceedings to Report stage, with no advantage and considerable damage to the normal proceedings of the House, since we should have to alter the custom on Report of not discussing the Question that the Clause stand part, and so forth.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I suggested that if it were recommitted we would have a second Committee stage on the Floor of the Hot se, followed by a pause and then two or more extra days on Report.

Mr. Grimond: With my usual clarity, I can see that that might make the proceedings even longer, so that we might spend more time on the Finance Bill than we did before. One of the advantages of taking it on the Floor of the House is that an hon. Member who is interested in one part can attend only that part of the debate. But if he is upstairs, he will have to be there for the whole business—lawyers, economists and all. Sending it upstairs should be carefully considered and our suggestion is at least a way of surmounting the difficulty.
The First Secretary pointed out earlier that we have got into the habit of sending to Committee Bills which greatly affect people's pockets. Finance is now by no means confined to the Finance Bill. But, as I said then, this is perhaps a reason for looking at the whole method of dealing with such Bills, and perhaps we might have to extend this procedure to those Bills as well.
I do not necessarily think that, because we do not examine these Bills quite as fully as we should perhaps, or allow all hon. Members to take part in debates upon them, we should extend this procedure to the Finance Bill, but we should strike a balance and we want the Bill to be well-examined.
I do not share the unanimous disapproval of lawyers. Even the right hon. and learned Member for the Wirral, I feel, has his points. I am a lawyer myself. Lawyers often make shorter speeches than other people and sometimes clearer ones and occasionally point out legal difficulties. I do not even share the unanimous disapproval of economists and a Committee which could give time to examining some parts of the Finance Bill even during the summer evenings might do more good than rattling through Clauses at 4 o'clock in the morning.
Therefore, I do not oppose the idea of the Committee. But something like our proposal should be accepted. If objections to it convince the House, we must look at the matter again, because we cannot just extend the Report stage, even with a Recommittal stage as well, and hope to save much time. Nor can we abandon now and forever in all Finance Bills the right of all hon. Members to take part. I realise that, if we pass this, it can be amended or repealed in future, but it is difficult to find time for procedure discussions and I fear that once we have agreed this, it will remain with us for some time.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: That was a rather whimsical speech, but it was miles away from what we are discussing, and we had better get back to the present practice, of which some hon. Members do not seem to be aware. At present a Committee of Selection sets up a Committee on a Bill and I have no doubt that the Committee in this case would consider the sort of subjects affected under the Bill, perhaps textiles or drugs in different parts of the country, and would strive to achieve a geographical balance. At the end of the day, there would be a balanced Committee.
Let us consider these questions of the Ministers. At present, very often, fewer Members attend Finance Bill debates than are in the Chamber now, and, on different Clauses, Ministers come in and


out, as do leading figures on the other side, either to lead or to advise. If there are to be 50 Members in this Committee, that would be a larger number to consider the Bill than there usually is now. Therefore, it is reasonable. On Board of Trade matters, the President of the Board of Trade would attend, for instance. Obviously, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be there all the time, and it is really a matter of servicing the Committee sensibly.
We cannot go over again the discussions of whether the Bill should go upstairs. The House has decided that it should and we are moving on now from that point. We must move on from that. I do not think that Ministers are in a different position from that of Law Officers.
I sympathise with the Liberal Party, because they are a corporate body in the House, and I shall be interested to hear what the Leader of the House says about them. But it is one thing to argue in the concept of a majority of 100—even though it may be diminishing-and entirely a different thing to argue in the concept of the 1964–66 Parliament. Minorities have their rights, but majorities must govern—and that must be the consideration of any Government.

8.31 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I am in a quandary, because while I fully support the point of view expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), I also tend towards support of the Liberal Amendment, for I consider the whole proposal to send the Finance Bill upstairs to be "crackers" and I consider that the Leader of the House is cracked in his proposals. If we are dealing with a cracked situation and a cracked Minister, it may be that we should support a cracked Amendment. I do not know whether that is a logical approach, but it is impossible to deal with this ridiculous situation in a normal and logical way and I may find myself out of the normal line and tending to support the Liberal Amendment.
Both the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and myself were on the Select Committee on Procedure. I was interested that he quite rightly read out the evidence given

by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. At the time I also thought that the evidence given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was cracked. I do not understand how any man with the ability, the capacity and the brain of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury could give such evidence to the Committee. It was absolute nonsense. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles was right to put it on the record of the House and not to leave it tucked away in the evidence to a Select Committee, because the proposals made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury were ridiculous. It was frightening to find that the Patronage Secretary tried to ride two horses at the same time. He partly supported the Chief Secretary's evidence but partly he opposed it. We have reached a situation in which we are discussing a cracked Amendment to a cracked situation.
If I may become a little more serious, may I ask the Leader of the House whether we shall be presented, as a House of Commons, with a detailed list of how all these proposals are to work before we embark on the monstrous proposal to send the Finance Bill upstairs. I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate, but I understand that this point has not been met. It is important to have prepared a considered list of all the points which have been raised during the debate. I do not regard this as a Government proposal. I regard it as a revolutionary proposal of the Leader of the House. He has to be used for something, because he was not very successful in other posts in the Government. He is being allowed full rein in altering the procedure of the House.
But it is important for us to know in some detail exactly how we are to deal with all the points which have been raised. As far as I can gather from those to whom I have spoken since I arrived in the Chamber, the whole proposal does not seem to have been thought out with any clarity. Because it happens to be my line of liking in Parliamentary life, I should be delighted to pop upstairs into Committee on a variety of points which I should like to make on behalf of my constituents. There would therefore be an advantage in the Liberal Amendment. But we must have a very clear idea of how the Leader of the House proposes to stage the machinery for this new arrangement for the Finance Bill.
I gather that the Leader of the House wants every hon. Member to have an opportunity to raise matters of importance—through the Liberal Amendment, or on recommittal of the Clauses or on Report. In that case, the House will have to go into consultation with Mr. Speaker to ensure that the old procedure of not discussing matters which have been decided in Standing Committee shall not be continued.
No one has said how sorry they will feel for the hon. Members who will be incarcerated upstairs each afternoon, evening and perhaps all night. They will have a pretty thin time, because they will not to able to protect the interests of their constituents on the Floor of the House—quite apart from the strain of being in Committee upstairs and arguing technical details of Clauses of which they have no special knowledge and in which perhaps they have no special interest. Unless there has been consultation with Mr. Speaker we may find on Report that it is impossible to discuss certain issues which, for the protection of the public, ought to be discussed by the House as a whole.
For generations the people of Britain have accepted the procedures of the House in regard to the Finance Bill and they will not have them altered at the drop of a hat to satisfy the Leader of the House. Indeed, they are not certain of the motives of the right hon. Gentleman or the part he plays in Parliamentary life. He may have the idea that we should have an entirely different form of Parliament. Certainly the country does not want that, however much the electorate like one or other of the parties—as well as the nationalists, who represent an important, if different, point of view.
Before embarking on the sort of change proposed by the Leader of the House, we should be presented with a White Paper containing precise details about how the new procedure will operate. If these details are not presented, we should not allow the right hon. Gentleman to have his head. I would rather see his head rolling on the floor. We are here dealing with the right of the public to be represented it-, Parliament. I will listen with interest to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in reply, but at the moment I am not sure which way I shall vote.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: I will not comment on the various points made by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). The theme of her speech was that both the Motion and Amendment are cracked, but I detected many cracks in her speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) suggested earlier that any hon. Member could speak on any subject at any time. I agree that, at present, it is the right of every hon. Member to propose Amendments to the Finance Bill, and I would be willing to give my hon. Friend advice about the tabling of Amendments. However, if the Liberal Amendment is rejected, I want to be sure that we shall have the safeguards for which we asked earlier.
I once proposed an Amendment to the Finance Bill. I recommended that the Purchase Tax on buttons be removed. No Chairman could have refused to accept my Amendment and, in fact, the Purchase Tax was removed. I understand that even if an hon. Member does not sit in a Committee upstairs, he has the right to propose Amendments—although, not able to be present himself, he must persuade another hon. Member to move them for him.
I have great sympathy with the Liberal Amendment. Although I appreciate the position of Ministers, I trust that they will be sympathetic towards back benchers. If something is good for Ministers, it is good for back benchers. I agree that it would be difficult to allow great numbers of hon. Members to wander into Committees sitting upstairs and make speeches.
The Motion says that
… any Minister shall not vote or make any motion …
A Member can at present propose a Motion, but if that right is to disappear we must still do our best to see that our constituencies are truly represented. I ask my right hon. Friend to recognise the value and importance of every hon. Member with constituency interests having the right to bring a case forward. If a Member is not to be able to do that by the present method, we must have safeguards to ensure that he can continue to do it in other ways in the future.

8.45 p.m.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: I do not know whether or not I shall be invited to a Standing Committee. I am torn between the treat of long sunny London afternoons and a fear of injustice to my constituency, party and country if I am excluded.
As to what is a minority and what is a majority, I would remind the Leader of the House, who has to take all factors into account, that the march of time can bring anomalies between elections, so that sometimes a Government may have a majority in this House but be in a minority in the country. I represent in this House the smallest party in Scotland—and I am also the smallest "party" in this House, because I am smaller than the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans).
My party is pledged to seek separate statistics for Scotland—that is a fundamental—and I have been sent here on that basis. When we press urgently for separate statistics for Scotland we are told that we will not get them. If we cannot get separate statistics in writing, for whatever reason I do not know, my party, through me, should be able to watch statistics in the making. I therefore make a brief plea that my party, through me, should be invited to go in and out of the Standing Committee as those Clauses of interest to my constituency and party are debated.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I am afraid that the hon. Lady the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing) starts under a very severe misapprehension. She wants home rule for Scotland, but what she does not understand is that it is Scotland that has taken over England.
It has been said that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is cracked. If he is cracked he is not the only Member—and I will not mention any names. When I listened to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) I wondered whether she had tumbled to the fact that we have already decided that the Finance Bill shall go to a Standing Committee. Towards the end of her speech it became clear that she did realise that, but what all her requests for information had to do with either the Motion or the Amendment I fail to see.
The Liberals seem to have put down an Amendment which they do not want to have made speeches on some other Amendment to something else. I have some sympathy with them, of course. In passing I would say to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that when moving an Amendment it is not a good idea at the same time to issue threats. If a Member is trying to get his own way, it is not his wisest course to say that if the Minister does not accept the Amendment the Member and his hon. Friends will vote against the Motion, and will also vote at 10 o'clock against the suspension of the rule. That is not a very sensible way of going about things.

Mr. David Steel: I did not make any threats. I said that unless the right hon. Gentleman withdrew his Motion I would pursue my Amendment. When tabling an Amendment it is normal to expect it to go to a vote. As to voting against the suspension of the rule, that is for different reasons. I indicated an intention—it is not a threat—of what we will do.

Mr. Blackburn: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's definition of a threat is. To say that he intends to vote against the suspension of the rule if he does not get his own way seems to me to be very like a threat. Their speeches had little relevance to their Amendment. It seemed that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) since a certain event took place in Hamilton has become more nationalist than the Nationalists.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) of course objects to everything that comes forward. He said that he had some experience of Standing Committees. I have had some experience of Standing Committees in a slightly different capacity. I cannot think that at any time a visit by the Law Officers to a Committee would upset what the right hon. Gentleman called "the corporate life" which develops in Committee. I cannot see that the corporate life was ever upset by the visit of a Law Officer. Nor, if we accept the Motion, can I see that it would upset the corporate life of the Committee if a Minister happened to attend it. If all the Ministers from the


Treasury were put on to the Committee that would seriously reduce the number of other hon. Members who could be on it. I have not seen inside my right hon. Friend's mind and do not know whether that is the reason for the decision or not, I see very little to quarrel with the suggestion that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not a member of the Committee he could visit it at times and give advice to the hon. Members if they wished.
It would be dangerous to think of accepting the Liberal Amendment, as it stands. We would then have incorporated into what we have agreed to—sending the Bill upstairs—some of the worst features of the past whereby 630 Members could wander in and out and make speeches when they wanted to do so. Whether my right hon. Friend would be prepared to say that he would give further consideration to the problem, I do not know. I have every sympathy with the minority groups. They may not have as much representation as they would like to have. I see that there is a problem, but it cannot be solved by the Amendment. If it were agreed to, they would be in a worse state than in the present position over Standing Committees whereby an hon. Member who is not a member of the Committee can put down an Amendment. He cannot move it but a member of the Committee can do so. If we accepted this Amendment, he would not be able to put down an Amendment to be considered in the Committee.
Rather than issue threats about what will happen if my right hon. Friend does not withdraw the Motion, the Liberals would be well advised to withdraw this Amendment and ask my right hon. Friend to give further consideration to their problems.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: On the previous Motion we had a great deal of discussion and I was told that it was a wide-ranging debate. When I put down this modest Motion on a modest range, I did not expect it to get so far, but it became mated to a Liberal Amendment and a variegated insect was hatched. I do not know how much the House wants me to reply to speeches which have been made, including that by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). I have

a suspicion that not all her points were made seriously to be replied to.

Dame Irene Ward: They were.

Mr. Crossman: I take it that silence means consent.

Dame Irene Ward: No, I am not silent.

Mr. Crossman: Then I make no reply [Laughter.] I return to the serious speeches. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) said they were opposed to everything in our Motion. I realise that the Liberals drafted their Amendment on to the Motion in order to raise other subjects.
There seems to be some misunderstanding. The Motion was not aimed by the Government to oblige the Government but—this may be a wrong apprehension—entirely because there had been a great deal of complaint that Ministers whose presence was required in Standing Committees to answer a question or to clear up a matter were not available to the Committees.
The purpose of this Motion is to ensure that a Committee does its work more efficiently, to provide for the attendance of a Minister who, on a couple of Clauses or from a certain aspect, could be useful to the Committee. Speaking as a Minister, I have a suspicion—and I think the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames almost accused me of it—that Ministers tend not to throw themselves at Committees, longing to address them, but show a sinister tendency to absent themselves from them. Therefore, there is a danger of having no Ministers present.
I was asked whether it was intended that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be a member of the Standing Committee. Of course, I can relieve the mind of the House and say that it is our intention that the Chancellor shall be a member of the Committee. To take another example, I do not think we would intend the Secretary of State for Scotland necessarily to be one of the 50 Members of the Committee. Therefore, we would think it sensible, if there were aspects of the work of a Minister on which he should say something to the Committee


or on which the Committee might wish to cross-examine him, that it should be possible for this to be done. The purpose of enabling a Minister to attend is for the convenience of the Committee.
I do not consider we should think of reproducing just another Standing Committee to be exactly like any other Standing Committee. It will have to evolve its own rules, and this is one of the variations of this Committee from normal Standing Committees, though I think this is a rule which one might later apply to them all, so that other Standing Committees would be able from time to time to invite a Minister to attend on some narrow aspect in order to make a statement for the convenience of the Committee, but without having any voting rights.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman said that it will be open to the Committee to invite a Minister to attend. As I understand the proposed Standing Order, the initiative rests with the Minister.

Mr. Crossman: It enables the Minister to attend if he feels that he has a duty to tell the Committee something. Equally, if he is informed that the Committee would like him to attend he will be enabled to do so. I think the right hon. Gentleman is correct. If the Government felt that a Minister was needed to put a certain point, then the Minister would be able to attend on his own initiative.
I think it is a little unreasonable of hon. Members opposite to say that they will vote against this proposal. It seems to me modest and sensible. Indeed, I am surprised that we have not done this years ago, not only on the Finance Bill—

Mr. Blackburn: If I may interrupt my right hon. Friend, I remember one occasion when I was Chairman of a Standing Committee and the Committee was angry because the Home Secretary was not present and was not a member of the Committee. I had to rule that if the Committee wanted him to attend I would have to say that he could not come because he was not a Member of that Committee. This proposal would make it possible for a Minister to attend in those circumstances.

Mr. Crossman: We drafted this proposal in relation to the Finance Bill because we thought it would be a good thing to try it with a Bill where it was clear we ought to do it. However, in the next Session we might decide that it would be advantageous to make it a normal rule for all Standing Committees.

Mr. Jennings: May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the words:
may take part in the deliberations …
Do they mean that if the Committee wanted a Minister to attend, the Committee could summon him?

Mr. Crossman: No, that would be the wrong way to put it. I assume that a communication might go from the Committee, but I think it would be on the initiative of the Minister to attend. This Motion does not say on what prompting he should attend. We have merely given the right for the Minister to take part. We have left it to him and the Committee as to how the arrival of the Minister is motivated.

Mr. Jennings: Would it not be logical that, if the Minister on his initiative can take part in the proceedings, the Committee on its initiative could ask the Minister to come?

Mr. Crossman: It seems that we are now moving from the question of a Standing Committee to that of a Select Committee which can summon Ministers to attend for the purposes of investigation. I should want to think that over. The present Motion merely provides that the Ministry may take part, and leaves it open.
I feel that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are being a bit cantankerous in not recognising this proposal for what it is, that is, an attempt to meet what I thought was an essential need for a Finance Committee at work upstairs. We had in mind also the frequent need of many Standing Committees in the past, and the suggestions from people who have served on them with greater experience than I have that this proposal would be valuable. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) made that point clear in his contribution.

Mr. Onslow: To take the case of the Finance Bill, should it be necessary for


a Minister to attend to explain a technical point connected with, say, aviation, ought there not to be other provision so that someone on the other side who is not necessarily a member of the Committee but who may be equally expert could reply?

Mr. Crossman: I am, as the House knows, only too eager to go haring after good ideas. That would provide for the attendance of shadow Ministers as well. We shall have the whole House attending soon.

Mr. Onslow: Why not? Take the Bill on the Floor.

Mr. Crossman: Exactly. If we get everybody there, there will be no point in taking the Bill upstairs. This is the second point to which I was about to come. I turn now from the limited proposal which the Government have made, a sensible and modest proposal that Ministers should take part when necessary or useful, to the wider proposal made by the Liberal Party.

Mr. William Hamilton: Before my right hon. Friend goes further, may I raise a question? First, I should apologise for not being here for most of the debate, having been engaged elsewhere. If the point I am about to raise has been dealt with in the debate already, I apologise for repeating it.
There is the question of the Scottish Law Officers who are Members of the Government but not Members of the House. It is frequently inconvenient to the Scottish Standing Committee not to have the attendance of the Law Officers to explain and discuss matters of law. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this question at a subsequent stage so that the Law Officers could attend the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mr. Crossman: On this occasion, I should like to summon the Secretary of State for Scotland to stand by me in order to help in these matters, but he is not available now and I cannot do so. I am not pre pared to give an answer off the cuff, without his advice on that question which, though interesting, is, perhaps, dangerous for an Englishman. Wisely, I think, I shall content myself with saying that I take cognisance of it and I shall brood on it further.
Now, the Liberal Amendment. I am glad that the Liberals made clear that they realise that it is unworkable in the sense that we could not accept it as it stands, but, neverthless, it raises in practical form the issue which was discussed earlier, in my view by far the most important issue during the major debate we had. I was struck by the fact that many other arguments against taking the Finance Bill upstairs which had loomed large in previous debates had dwindled away, and this was almost the only surviving argument which seemed to have power to move hon. Members. The others had all dwindled away. [HON.MEMBERS: "No."] I may have got it wrong, but that was my impression. The cheers which greeted the speeches of my two hon. Friends who spoke on this issue and concentrated on that single argument, and the enthusiasm and passion with which their speeches were greeted across the Floor, made me realise that this was the leitmotif of those who must still find some argument against sending the Finance Bill to a Standing Committee. This is the remaining argument, the last ditch of resistance to change.
Quite often, last ditches are important. Last ditches may well matter. I take the point seriously, and I have reflected upon it carefully. First, may I reply to the Liberals about their proposal itself. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has just made one point about it. If it is argued, as we have rightly argued, that we should submit the Finance Bill to a Standing Committee because we think that Committee work is best done in Committee upstairs, and the essence of a Committee is that it is a smaller and more compact body than the House itself, involving esprit de corps and work as a team, as my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley said, we ought not to splay the Committee open and fill it up with occasional visitors coming to and fro. Although it is an attractive notion to turn it into a kind of Grand Committee—in which, perhaps, "Grand" means floppy or sloppy—I do not like the idea. The Committee must be a working body which works hard and together. Therefore, I do not think that that is the way.
We must solve the problem which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) put to me, and which was best described in the admirable


speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates), who said that he wanted to make sure that the back bencher who had exerted his right every year to make the same constituency speech should not suddenly be denied it this year. That is a worthy ambition. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that hon. Members have made their speeches year after year, like the speech about the offertory which comes so often. One does not like to feel that these hardy annuals will be denied to hon. Members.
Apart from the hardy annuals, there are the occasions when suddenly a Clause in a Finance Bill is of vital interest to an area, a constituency or a group of constituencies. That is the important point. How can we exclude from their right to a say on a Finance Bill the number of back benchers who find, although they may consider it boring in general, that it is of passionate importance to them on a single Clause? The answer is that we cannot. We thought that we could solve the problem by the device we have evolved of a Report stage considerably longer than before, preceded by a Recommittal stage. That will mean dividing the time we had thought of allocating to Report into two parts, the Report stage proper and the Recommittal stage a few days before, giving time for Amendments to be put down and considered. They will not have to be in final form, and the back bencher can deal with them. In that way, we see the back bencher retaining his rights.
Before we reach that situation, it is difficult to guess how many back benchers will be concerned. Whether 150 or 20 hon. Members will feel compelled to play a leading rôle will largely depend on the particular Finance Bill. It will depend on something that none of us now knows—the theme of the Bill, or the areas of the country to be affected. None of us can predict how it will go, what period will have to be allocated, and how one will calculate the time for the Recommittal and Report stages in order that all the hon. Members concerned should have their claims met. It is something that we cannot foresee and cannot guess.
The argument has been put to me that we might find ourselves back with just

a new stage, that we should have the small Committee upstairs doing a very good job and then have expanded the other stages, so that we gained nothing and did not succeed in our purpose. But if I say, as I do, that we recognise the back benchers' claim, that is a commitment to a certain scale of Report stage. It has always been my view that the main purpose of the Report stage was precisely to give the hon. Member, who has already had the right to talk about the general principle of the Bill in the four days of the Budget debate and on the Second Reading, the chance to see that his particular constituency or local interests were recognised.
I have reflected on this, and I think that I am clear in my mind that for once in his life my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury had the kind of speculative political imagination of which I am often accused of being a leading specimen. For once, he seems to have had the kind of impetuous psychological curiosity and roaming after ideas which is most unlike a Chief Secretary. But that is what happens to Chief Secretaries when they come into contact with a group of men so stimulating as the Select Committee on Procedure. That contact of minds produced that extraordinary outburst of political brilliance. He probably never said anything as unusual, adventurous—and possibly as wrong—as the idea he put forward there.
My right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary was infected by the idea. I was infected by it that night when they talked to me. We all saw an interest in this. The cold light of reflection has, however, made me realise that we would destroy our Committee effectively before we started. We could not allow this, because we want the Committee to be an effective group. Expanding it in that way would not do it.
I turn to the latest minority groups and the problem of representation of minority groups on the Finance Bill in Committee upstairs. It is not for me, but for the Committee of Selection, to know how it selects, but certainly it is important that the Committee should hear views in the House about how it should select.
I would have thought that in the kind of precise Committee of which we are


thinking there was hope that the number from the minority group might be substantially increased, even to the point of being doubled. That might happen. Of that doubling, one part might not be the Liberals if the Liberals felt that another minority should be given their share of representation. One might have a creature half-man, half-woman to represent the other half. However, I do not know. It is not for me to say. It is more practical to have minority groups adequately represented on the Committee upstairs and playing their part than seeing them floating in and out whenever their minority interests are affected and they are needed for this purpose.
I must end with a more serious thought of the representation of the rights of the back-bench Member. I give my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood the absolute assurance that, although in planning we may have miscalculated, we have assumed that we shall satisfy that claim. I have assumed that as we will organise it this year there will not be a clamant queue of back benchers who have been denied the rights which are traditionally theirs.
I have calculated and I believe that we shall plan the Report stage and the work of recommittal so that there will not be a queue of individual back benchers who are denied rights, because that would be a denial of the purposes of that stage of the Bill. If, however, we have miscalculated, or if the Bill was of a certain character, I give the further assurance that we shall next year review precisely what has happened from the point of view of those rights. Recognising this, realising that we shall have to reorganise a second time, we shall have another go and see whether we can make things work better for them. We recognise that this is a legitimate claim of back benchers in a reform of this kind.

Mr. Onslow: I am grateful for those assurances, which we shall be interested to see in text form, but would the right hon. Gentleman say that one way in which he might guarantee that back benchers could be certain of a share of the recommittal time, whatever it might be, would be if the Government were to put themselves under a self-denying ordinance on the tabling of Government Amendments?

Mr. Crossman: That is naturally, very much a thought which I will put to the new Chancellor, but he is, I expect, experienced enough to receive it with the scepticism which Chancellors do in denying themselves their own essential new Clauses. This is a difficult problem.
It is, I think, true to say that in the last 10 years, back benchers have doubled the time which they spend on the Finance Bill. They have done it because the opportunity was there. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the First Secretary that it is not true that these are the only back-bench rights to be defended. There are a whole number of other areas in which I want to see back benchers active and given a chance.
We have a later Amendment concerning Affirmative Orders. There is, and will continue to be, a steady growth in the number of Affirmative Orders presented to the House. I shall be making proposals about the less important ones which arise after Ten o'clock. We should spend much more time in discussing such Orders. We can have an Affirmative Order of exactly the kind which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland wants. I wish that we had time to spend a whole day—and with the growth of affirmative Orders we must allocate more days—to an adequate discussion of delegated legislation. This seems to me as important in that sense as making sure that the back bencher has his rights on the Finance Bill.
I do not deny that this is a major change, which has tremendous advantages. If we were to do it at the cost of the back bencher, with his basic right of protest on behalf of his constituency, we should have undermined a tradition which none of us wanted to undermine. Those who planned the reform have done so in a careful attempt to make provision for this. If we fail this year to make provision, we give a guarantee that at the end of next year we will discuss with the new Select Committee on Procedure how best to do this.
With those remarks, I hope that the Liberals will withdraw their Amendment and that I can get support for my Motion.

Mr. David Steel: I made the point that one could hardly expect one Member on this new Committee to conduct the Liberal Party's case throughout the Finance Bill. The right hon. Gentleman


said, I thought, that he would consider the matter sympathetically, although it is a matter for the Committee of Selection, but he would think that the minorities should have greater representation. Then he seemed to go on to say that out of the double representation half should be given to another smaller minority.

Mr. Crossman: I have nothing to do with it. It was not for me to say what

minority it represented. I was going a bit far in saying that it might be doubled. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not fail to withdraw his Amendment because of that.

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 118.

Division No. 12.]
AYES
[9.17 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford. E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Alldritt, Walter
Foley, Maurice
MacPherson, Malcolm


Anderson, Donald
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mabon, Simon (Bootle)


Archer, Peter
Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Armstrong, Ernest
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marks, Kenneth


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Freeson, Reginald
Mellish, Robert


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mendelson, J. J.


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Garrett, W. E.
Millan, Bruce


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ginsburg, David
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Barnes, Michael
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Barnett, Joel
Gourlay, Harry
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Bence, Cyril
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Moonman, Eric


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bessell, Peter
Gregory, Arnold
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Binns, John
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bishop, E. S.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Moyle, Roland


Boardman, H.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Neal, Harold


Booth, Albert
Hamling, William
Newens, Stan


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hannan, William
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Boyden, James
Harper, Joseph
Oakes, Gordon


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric


Bradley, Tom
Hart, Mrs. Judith
O'Malley, Brian


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Haseldine, Norman
Orbach, Maurice


Brooks, Edwin
Hattersley, Roy
Orme, Stanley


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hazell, Bert
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Buchan, Norman
Hooley, Frank
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hooson, Emlyn
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carmichael, Neil
Horner, John
Park, Trevor


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Coe, Denis
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Conlan, Bernard
Howie, W.
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Huckfield, Leslie
Pentland, Norman


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dalyell, Tam
Hunter, Adam
Randall, Harry


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Rees, Merlyn


Davidson,James( Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kenyon, Clifford
Sheldon, Robert


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Shore, Peter (Sterney)


Delargy, Hugh
Lawson, George
Short, R t. Hn. Ed ward (N 'c' tle-u-Tyne)


Dell, Edmund
Lee, John (Reading)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan
Slater, Joseph


Dewar, Donald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Small, William


Dickens, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Doig, Peter
Lubbock, Eric
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dunnett, Jack
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McBride, Neil
Stonehouse, John


Eadie, Alex
MacColl, James
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, A H
Thomas, George (Cardiff, w.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)

Thornton, Ernest


Ellis, John
McGuire, Michael
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Ennals, David
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ros&amp;Crom'ty)
Tinn, James


Ensor, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Tuck, Raphael


Faulds, Andrew
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


Fernyhough, E.
Maclennan, Robert
Varley, Eric C.


Finch, Harold
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)




Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
White, Mrs. Eirene
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilkins, W. A.
Woof, Robert


Wallace, George
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Yates, Victor


Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)



Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and Mr. Charles Grey.


Whitaker, Ben
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)





NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Heseltine, Michael
Pym, Francis


Astor, John
Hiley, Joseph
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Awdry, Daniel
Holland, Philip
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Baker, W. H. K.
Hornby, Richard
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boardman, Tom
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Body, Richard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Iremonger, T. L.
Royle, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott, Nicholas


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sharples, Richard


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Silvester, Frederick


Bullus, Sir Eric
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Sinclair, Sir George


Burden, F. A.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Smith, John


Campbell, Gordon
Kimball, Marcus
Stainton, Keith


Carlisle, Mark
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stodart, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Kitson, Timothy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Scott-Hopkins, James


Costain, A. P.
Lane, David
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maddan, Martin
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mawby, Ray
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Emery, Peter
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Eyre, Reginald
Montgomery, Fergus
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Farr, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Walters, Dennis


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Ward, Dame Irene


Fortescue, Tim
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Weatherill, Bernard


Foster, Sir John
Murton, Oscar
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Neave, Airey
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gower, Raymond
Nott, John
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Grant, Anthony
Onslow, Cranley
Worsley, Marcus


Grant-Ferris, R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Wylie, N. R.


Grieve, Percy
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Younger, Hn. George


Gurden, Harold
Page, John (Harrow, W.)



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Jasper More and


Harrison, col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
 Mr. Hector Monro.


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Prior, J. M. L.

Resolved,
That Standing Order No. 68 (Attendance of law officers in standing committees) be amended as follows:—

Line 8, at end add:

(2) In a standing committee which is to consider a bill brought in upon a Ways and Means resolution any Minister of the Crown,

Allocation of Time to Bills (New Standing Order)


Allocation of time to bills.
(1) Where, in respect of a public Bill either—



(a) Mr. Speaker has been informed that no general agreement to allot a specified number of days or portions of days to the consideration of the Bill in Committee or on report has been reached, or


5
(b) any general agreement of which Mr. Speaker has been informed is, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, working ineffectively,


10
a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown that the Committee on the Bill shall report the Bill on or before a specified day, and that the Business Committee shall make recommendations to the House as to the number of days or portions of days to be allotted to the consideration of the Bill in Committee, on report or on Third Reading, and as to the time by which proceedings on any parts into which they may divide the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion in Committee or on report and any further recommendations which may in their opinion be necessary to ensure the bringing to a conclusion of the proceedings on the parts of the Bill allotted to those days or portions of days;

being a Member of this House, though not a member of the standing committee, may take part in the deliberations of the committee, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move,

15
and not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings on such a motion Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put any question necessary to dispose of those proceedings.



(2) For the purposes of this Order the Business Committee shall consist of the Chairmen's Panel together with not more than five other Members to be nominated by Mr. Speaker.


20
(3) When the Business Committee shall have reported the resolution or resolutions containing their recommendations to the House, the provisions of sub-paragraph (c) of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall apply to the proceedings on any motions for the consideration of such report and on the consideration of the said report.



That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

I believe that it may be for the convenience of the House if at this stage I merely move the Motion formally.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take it that it would be in accordance with your wish and that of the House if, as on the previous Motion, the two Amendments standing in my name were taken in discussion at the same time with the Motion although, in view of what Mr. Speaker said at the beginning of our proceedings, I take it that our right to divide separately on the Motion and on the Amendments would be reserved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I think that it would be to the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman would move his first Amendment, the debate taking place both on the main Motion and on both the Amendments in

In line 23, at end add—


5
(4) In any case in which subsequent to submission by the Business Committee of their recommendation in respect of the time to be allotted for discussion of any Bill or any part of a Bill amendments to that Bill or part of a Bill are tabled by a Minister or by the Member in charge of the Bill which in the opinion of not less than 20 Members signified in writing are likely to raise matters requiring discussion additional to that likely to arise on the Bill in the form in which it was considered by the Business Committee, the Business Committee shall give further consideration to the time required for consideration of the Bill and shall make a further recommendation to the House as to what further time (if any) shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill, and the preceding paragraphs of this Order shall apply to such recommendations.


10

My two Amendments are totally different in what they seek to do but they have the common purpose of diminishing what I believe to be the ill effect of the Government's proposal. I want to make it clear at the outset that even with those two Amendments added, although the mischief to be effected by the Government proposal would be very much reduced, I should still regard this as a very dangerous and unsound proposition.

I turn to the first of my Amendments. I imagine that most of us would be prepared to leave out "a Minister of the Crown" and insert "Mr. Speaker". That is a plain improvement, on the face of it. Nevertheless, it raises a serious point

his name, with his having the right to call a Division on either or both of the Amendments if he so desires.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, in line 6, leave out
'a Minister of the Crown '
and insert
'Mr. Speaker'
Possibly it would be convenient as I feel very strong objections to the proposed new Standing Order, that I should first of all direct my argument and invite the attention of the House to both the quite separate and distinct Amendments which stand in my name—alone, in the case of the Amendment I have moved but also in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) in the other case:

which I should be grateful if the House would consider.

The words that it is proposed to change relate to that part of the new proposed Standing Order which, at the moment, reads:
any general agreement of which Mr. Speaker has been informed is, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, working ineffectively".

It is proposed that where there is general agreement of a voluntary nature, such as has been effectively tried on earlier occasions, and such agreement is not, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, working effectively, the procedure of the rest of the proposed Standing Order—which, in substance, means the imposition of the


Guillotir e at the cost of debate for not more than two hours—is put into operation.

It is surely a well-established principle that no one should be a judge in his own cause, and where we have an agreement between a Minister and my right hon. Friend on the Opposition Front Bench, surely the decisive factor should not be the Minister's view whether an agreement to which he is a party is or is not working effectively. This is an agreement of which, under the proposed Standing Order, Mr. Speaker will be aware. It is not landing him with any new matter to consider. I am sure that all hon. Members would feel complete confidence in the impartiality of Mr. Speaker in deciding. aye or no, whether an agreement was working effectively.

I say this without being offensive in any way: we should not feel the same confidence in the opinion of a Minister. We all know that when we are parties to an agreement which gets into difficulties—and it is only in respect of an agreement that does get into difficulties that this proposal operates—we are apt to have our own inevitably partisan view whether or not it has been working properly. This would be as true, of Ministers from my own party as I believe it to be true of Minister,, of the party opposite.

Therefore, to go for the impartial arbitration of Mr. Speaker must improve the confidence that we would all feel that this provision, bad though we regard it basically, at least was being fairly administered. There may be many reasons, difficult for a Minister to appreciate, why an agreement is working ineffectively. It may be—it has been the case in the past—that such an agreement is working ineffectively because of the incompetent way in which the Minister has handled the Bill—because of his refusal to make concessions, or of his adopting the sort of line that the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) adopted on the Land Commission Bill, of refusing to answer quite reasonable questions.

No one can expect a Minister, who is still a human being, fully to appreciate that the cause of the ineffective working of an agreement may be himself. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, who has to exercise so much patience in sitting here and

listening to speeches from hon. Members on both sides, is perhaps better placed than anyone else to form a just and fair assessment of that question.

If the First Secretary wants this system which he and his right hon. Friend seek to impose on the House to work, he will give it a better chance of working if the operation of this provision depends not on the inevitably partial opinion of a partial Minister, but on the impartial arbitrament of Mr. Speaker.

My Amendment to line 23, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk joins me, is designed to deal with a different contingency. This contemplates a situation in which the Guillotine procedure had been set in motion at a fairly early stage and the Business Committee—in view of its composition one must accept this—had done its best to allow a fair period for argument about the provisions of the Bill, and subsequently, the Minister or the Member in charge of the Bill put down a mass of new Amendments.

This is not a fanciful conception. Those of us who remember the 1965 Finance Bill recall that the then Chancellor put down literally hundreds of Amendments when the Bill was still in Committee. Most, I accept, did something to diminish the ill effects of a very ill-drafted Bill. Then there was our experience of the Prices and Incomes Act 1966, when, at an important stage at the end of the Committee, a whole new Part IV was put down, introducing compulsory powers. These were matters of the greatest importance.

If we assume, as we must, that the Business Committee has done its job properly on the facts before it, does it not automatically follow that, if that kind of situation repeated itself, the allocation of time made on the basis of the Bill as the Committee saw it would almost certainly be inadequate for a consideration of the Bill with the additional proposed Amendments? Surely that must be so. I have not sought to set this machinery in motion simply on the whim of an individual Member. It is for the House and for the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the provision for 20 Members to signify their view in writing is sensible. It seems to rule out the procedure being invoked somewhat eccentrically by an individual, but it is very


much a matter for the House whether it feels that this is a sensible moderating provision.

If these 20 Members did so signify, then, under this proposal, the Business Committee would have to meet, but it would not be bound to allot more time. As the Whip on the Front Bench will see, the proposed Amendment provides for increasing the time allotted, if any, but at least the Business Committee will have to consider the new situation. If this Guillotine procedure is to work regularly, as the main Motion proposes, it surely becomes much more important to have this provision for the situation arising when the Government, in perfectly good faith no doubt, set down a whole mass of new Amendments after the Business Committee has agreed an allocation of time arrangement and the House has approved it.

If the right hon. Gentleman wants this greatly increased use of the Guillotine to function with any smoothness, he must be prepared to deal with a situation which is not fanciful but which has arisen in the memory of all hon. Members in recent years. It becomes more important if the Guillotine is to be used regularly, because this increases the probability that, among other measures, it will be applied to some which are subject to the putting down of a large number of Amendments after the Committee stage has begun.

I therefore put forward this proposal seriously on the basis that, if we are to have this proposal—and I suspect that, with the Government Whips on, a Government which still has a majority of more or less 100 will be able to carry the main proposal—at least there should be this safeguard against a situation which everyone would deplore, in which the Business Committee might reach a decision on one basis, and the House then had to operate on a basis which had been changed as a result of the tabling of Amendments.

I do not want to say too much about the main proposal, but it is clearly designed to facilitate the frequent use of the Guillotine on Government Bills. I regard that as deplorable. Every Government have the right, if they think that an individual Measure is being subjected to fillibustering and an excessive attempt

to talk it out, to move a guillontine Motion. All Governments have done this from time to time, but only in respect of individual Measures and they have had to be prepared to spend a whole day, sometimes a singularly awkward and embarrassing day, arguing a guillotine Motion. That necessity is a very salutary discipline on a Government which may lightly consider interfering with the right of discussion in the House.

The balance between the ultimate right of Government to get their Measures through and the rights of hon. Members to talk and the Opposition to delay is about right at the moment. I very much regret this proposal because it shifts the balance enormously in favour of the Government, as is the case with many of the other proposals before us. This new Standing Order provides that the Government can impose a Guillotine at the cost of no more than two hours of debate, so one must consider what the effect of the intended frequent use of this power will be on the House and on the rights of the Opposition.

It is an elementary fact that time is the great weapon of an Opposition. Time and the right to use it and consume it is one of the Methods by which an Opposition can extract concessions from a Government. Anyone who has been a Minister for any length of time knows that Ministers make concessions on certain matters so as to get on with the Bill and create the atmosphere in which they can progress—to oil the machinery.

But once we deprive a Minister of that incentive, as would be done with a Guillotine, we would deprive the Opposition of this opportunity to secure, at any rate, some concessions. The Minister will know that he has only to sit in his place and wait for the clock to reach the predetermined hour and the bells will ring, he will have his Division and his Bill without having to make any concessions.

Whatever view one takes of general matters, most hon. Members will agree that that is not a state of affairs which is healthy for Parliament, because anything which induces Ministers, of all parties, to be more rigid and more inflexible weakens the authority, prestige and standing of Parliament. That, I need scarcely argue, is a thoroughly bad thing. But


it must be the inevitable consequence of a great extension of the use of the Guillotine.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are dealing with two specific Amendments.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understood that Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the beginning of these proceedings, said that we should take them together with the main Motion. The right hon. Gentleman has moved the Government Motion.

Mr. Speaker: I have now had a note from the Table which tells me that my predecessor in the Chair did say that, and I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Then I may pursue the matter? I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you know that I would not willingly go out of order, although I may sometimes do so inadvertently.
Part of the danger which we see in the Government's Motion is the wide extension of the Guillotine, and it would help the House if the First Secretary would say whether it is the intention, if the Motion is carried, to use the Guillotine regularly on all major Government Bills or whether the Government will in all cases, as in the past, wait until they see whether something in the nature of obstruction has developed.
I do not want to stress the point, but there is one other important aspect from the point of view of the Opposition. Under a Guillotine there is no incentive on Government supporters to hold back. We do not see the Patronage Secretary turning round with an irritated look at those Government supporters who seek to support the Government with their voices rather than their votes or to take the opposite view. The Opposition are therefore deprived of what in normal circumstances is their traditional advantage of taking the larger part of the time in discussing Government Measures. This is a fair way of maintaining a balance between an Opposition, who ultimately in most circumstances can be voted down, and a Government who, as a matter of definition, have the right to assert their will.
Here again we are getting a shift, not from Parliament to Government but from Opposition to Government. That is something which, as a member of the

Opposition, I must deplore. I think that I may say that as a Member of the House of some years standing I also very much deplore it, because here again we come to the fact that, as all hon. Members know, the power of the Government over the House has increased as the years have passed, and that has not been a good thing for Parliament. We have a proposal to operate the Guillotine on a regular basis, I suspect for fairly regular use. If that be so, then that, too, is a matter on which I must make my protest.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I do not know whether it is a case of chickens coming home to roost or, "If at first you don't succeed.…" But there are so many matters which we are discussing today which I have been advocating for many years. I raised the question of a timetable for Bills in the Select Committee on procedure in the 1955–59 Parliament. Hon. Members will find it on pages liv and lv. I am referring to it because I was a little more generous to the Opposition than is the Motion before us. The last paragraph was,
If during the committee stage of a Bill it is considered either by the Government or the Opposition that too much or too little time has been allocated for the efficient detailed examination of the Bill then either the Government or the Opposition should be able on one occasion only to refer the matter back to the business committee for further consideration.
That is a little more generous to the Opposition than is this Motion.
My experience in the House has led me to believe that a Bill is much more seriously discussed, much more expeditiously discussed and much more efficiently discussed if the House is working to a timetable. Otherwise there is always a tendency, particularly on a very important Bill, for too much time to be devoted to the early stages of a Bill and too little to the later stages. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that the Government could always introduce a Guillotine Motion. I do not see how any hon. Member can think that to spend a day on a Guillotine Motion is a sensible way of spending a Parliamentary day. Hon. Members speak more nonsense when discussing Guillotine Motions than when discussing anything else. If we can


avoid the waste of time that takes place in those debates, we will be doing something good.
The Motion presents the possibility of an agreed timetable. From what I have heard today, it is doubtful, when the Finance Bill goes upstairs on the first occasion, that there will be an agreed timetable. That is the impression I got from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite and it is foolish of them to take that attitude. If an agreed timetable cannot be obtained under paragraph 1 (a) of the Motion, then an Allocation of Time Order will have to be made by the Business Sub-Committee.
It seems that when the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames is in Opposition he develops what I can only call an Opposition technique and temperament. He forgets that there is a possibility that, some time in the far distant future, there might possibly be a Conservative Government.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Hear, hear.

Mr. Blackburn: From the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman today, however, one wonders whether he even considers that to be a possibility. He must agree that the Amendment to line 6 is nonsense. Why place more responsibility on Mr. Speaker, who already has more than enough to do, by leaving it to him to decide if an agreement is working ineffectively? Mr. Speaker does not even sit in Committees upstairs. It is more sensible for the Minister in charge of the Bill to make this decision. Had the Conservative Government in 1959 accepted my suggestion, the Opposition would be joining in the making of this decision.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The question is not whether Mr. Speaker has to decide if sufficient time has been given. The point of decision is much narrower. It is whether the agreement of which he has been notified is working satisfactorily. Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that a man who is party to an agreement is an unbiased judge as to whether the other party is working it effectively with him?

Mr. Blackburn: It depends on the man. The answer is "Yes" if it is a Labour Minister. He would be an impartial judge.
The right hon. Gentleman wants to alter paragraph 1(b) to read:
… any general agreement of which Mr. Speaker has been informed is, in the opinion of Mr. Speaker, working ineffectively.
As Mr. Speaker is not sitting in the Committee, he is not likely to know. Although the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment will be defeated, I trust that he will allow good sense to prevail and will withdraw the Amendment.
I have more sympathy with the Amendment which is also being discussed. In that, the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that if, by chance, after the Business Committee had decided the number of sittings, a Minister tabled a large number of Amendments, the whole matter should be reconsidered. I hope that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to that aspect of the problem.
I thought that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames had accepted the idea of having a timetable. I got that impression when he moved the Amendment and I was feeling rather pleased at what I thought was a change of heart on his part. He then went back to the beginning and demolished all that he had said later. I am afraid that I cannot agree with anything the right hon. Gentleman said about a timetable. I am very surprised that a right hon. Gentleman with his experience of this House should think that there is some merit in spending a day on a Guillotine Motion. I hope that the House will accept without question the Motion in the name of my right hon. Friend.

9.55 p.m.

Sir D. Glover: Hon. Members will see that I had put my name to the second Amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I do not think that my right hon. Friend, who is very famous in this House, will mind my saying that at least we are equal in producing that Amendment; in other words, I have not just a tagged my name to it—the idea was considerably mine. I say that only because on one of very few occasions I am not in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend. Many hon. Members opposite may think that I am an awkward person, but I try to be consistent, and because, when we were in Government, I thought from time to time that there was some case to be made


out for a timetable, I could not accept quite all of my right hon. Friend's criticisms.
I accept implicitly, particularly as a back bencher, that any movement towards a timetable may start one on a very slippery slope, in that having accepted a timetable in principle the next move may take one a little further. Therefore, emotionally—I think that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) will understand what I mean about this—I am very hesitant to say that I would support a timetable. "Suspect the Greeks when they come with gifts in their hands"—I look on the Government rather as Greeks in that sense, and view them with very grave suspicion.
I agree with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) that one of the weaknesses of the present system is that in Committee we fight a very controversial Bill tooth and nail and find ourselves still on Clause 1. The Government of the day then bring in a Guillotine Motion, with the result that we spend half an hour on Clauses 2 to 15, and find we have spent far too long on Clause I compared with the remainder of the Bill. I remember that very wise politician—and I am sure that hon. Members opposite will agree that he was wise—Mr. Harold Macmillan, saying to me when, as a very young Member I went on my first Standing Committee, "Let them talk on the first Clause, and then all the really difficult Clauses go through on the nod because the other side have got tired of their opposition."
There is a good deal of truth in that statement. A wise Government do not use Parliamentary Standing Orders to get through their business through: they work the machine on the basis of the human beings with whom they are dealing. It is not always accidental that a long time is taken on Clause 1. The

Government of the day may want that to happen because they hope that their opponents will then have exhausted themselves and allow, say, Clause 4—a very emotive Clause in this House—to go through on the nod.

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde is a very experienced Chairman, who must have sat in many Standing Committees which had got to the position where the Government of the day thought that they might have to seek a Guillotine. Instead, they found that the Opposition suddenly collapsed because they had used all their efforts on the first one or two Clauses and then began to peter out on the remaining Clauses, with the result that the Government got their Bill in about the same time as they would have done if they had had to debate a Guillotine Motion on the Floor of the House.

I hope that the Government are not suggesting that they will make the Guillotine automatic. If they do make it automatic—we understand that they have more votes on the premises than we are likely to be able to muster and can therefore expect to get this change in Standing Orders—I hope that the First Secretary will accept the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend and myself, because it would be outrageous for the House to approve a Standing Order bringing in a Guillotine Motion in vacuo as it were. In that case, I can imagine the fury of the hon. Member for Penistone, now on that side of the House, if he came back to this side, where he rightly belongs.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's sitting at any hour, though opposed. —[Mr. M. Stewart.]

The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 118.

Division No. 13.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.


Alldritt, Walter
Binns, John
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Anderson, Donald
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)


Archer, Peter
Blackburn, F.
Buchan, Norman


Armstrong, Ernest
Boardman, H.
Carmichael, Neil


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Booth, Albert
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Boyden, James
Coe, Denis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Conlan, Bernard


Barnes, Michael
Bradley, Tom
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Barnett, Joel
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Bence, Cyril
Brooks, Edwin
Cullen, Mrs. Alice




Dalyell, Tam
Huckfield, Leslie
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hunter, Adam
Park, Trevor


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pentland, Norman


Dempsey, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dickens, James
Lawson, George
Price, William (Rugby)


Doig, Peter
Lee, John (Reading)
Rees, Merlyn


Dunnett, Jack
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robinson W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rose, Paul


Eadie, Alex
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McBride, Neil
Sheldon, Robert


Ellis, John
MacColl, James
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Ennals, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Short,Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Ensor, David
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Slater, Joseph


Faulds, Andrew
Mackintosh, John P.
Small, William


Fernyhough, E.
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Foley, Maurice
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stonehouse, John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacPherson, Malcoim
Swain, Thomas


Ford, Ben
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thornton, Ernest


Freeson, Reginald
Marks, Kenneth
Tinn, James


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mellish, Robert
Tuck, Raphael


Garrett, W. E.
Mendelson, J. J.
Urwin, T. W.


Ginsburg, David
Millan, Bruce
Varley, Eric G.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Wallace, George


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Gregory, Arnold
Moonman, Eric
Wellbeloved, James


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitaker, Ben


Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hannan, William
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Wilkins, W. A.


Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Neal, Harold
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Newens, Stan
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Haseldine, Norman
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Hattersley, Roy
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hazell, Bert
Ogden, Eric
Woof, Robert


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
O'Malley, Brian
Yates, Victor


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Orbach, Maurice



Hooley, Frank
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Harry Gourlay and


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Mr W. Howie.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gower, Raymond
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)


Astor, John
Grant, Anthony
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maddan, Martin


Awdry, Daniel
Grieve, Percy
Mawby, Ray


Baker, W. H. K.
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Bessell, Peter
Gurden, Harold
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Boardman, Tom
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Miscampbell, Norman


Body, Richard
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Monro, Hector


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Heseltine, Michael
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Buchanan-Smith, Alick( Angus, N&amp;M)
Hiley, Joseph
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Murton, Oscar


Campbell, Gordon
Hooson, Emlyn
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hornby, Richard
Neave, Airey


Clegg, Walter
Howell, David (Guildford)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Onslow, Cranley


Davidson, James( Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Emery, Peter
Kimball, Marcus
Pink, R. Bonner


Eyre, Reginald
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Farr, John
Kitson, Timothy
Prior, J. M. L.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pym, Francis


Fortescue, Tim
Lane, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Lubbock, Eric
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)







Royle, Anthony
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Scott, Nicholas
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Scott-Hopkins, James
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Silvester, Frederick
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Worsley, Marcus


Sinclair, Sir George
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wright, Esmond


Smith, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Wylie, N. R.


Stainton, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Younger, Hn. George


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Walters, Dennis



Stodart, Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. Jasper More and


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. Bernard Weatherill.


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Question again proposed.

Sir D. Glover: I am sure that the House will be delighted to know that, during the interval for the business with which we have just dealt, I had an opportunity to recharge my batteries and develop the argument further in my mind. I had been dealing with the Government's proposal for a Guillotine. I wish to say to the leader of the House—may I have his attention? This is the right hon. Gentleman's debate, and I wish that he would do me the courtesy of listening. I put it to him that, in all the history of Parliament, the army and everything else, the sign of real leadership has been to be able to do things without compulsion. If the right hon. Gentleman thought that he had the skill to steer the House and get it to do what he thought desirable, he would not need the sanction of compulsion inherent in the proposed new Standing Order.
The right hon. Gentleman's thinking on this matter was exemplified by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) today who, in a speech of authoritarian tone, said, in effect, that speeches made in the House were a complete waste of time. This was the only conclusion one could draw from what he said in an earlier debate. It is quite understandable, therefore, if that be the view of the party opposite, that the right hon. Gentleman wants a Guillotine Motion on all Bills.
Just before the Division, I was saying—I do not think that the Leader of the House was listening—in fact, he was not in the Chamber—and he is not listening now—Mr. Speaker, may I have your protection? It is well understood that, during a debate which is opened by the Leader of the House, hon. Members have at least the rig it to expect some courtesy from the right hon. Gentleman in listening to what they say. I had explained, just before the Division, that I was not hostile to a good deal of timetable

Motions—not to use the more bloody sounding name "Guillotine"—particularly on a voluntary basis, accepting as I do that an inordinate amount of time may be given to one or two Clauses and then not enough is given to the remainder. I have, therefore, as I have said when we were in Government, an inclination towards an agreed timetable. However, the Government of the day should use a compulsory timetable on very many fewer occasions than appears likely to be the result—I say this in the light of what I have heard on the grapevine about the Government's intentions—of the proposed new Standing Order.
I come now to the Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and myself. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he has put forward all the alterations in our procedure—I believe with great sincerity, although somehow he always seems to get bogged down somewhere and things go wrong—to increase the influence and power of the back benchers. He is on the hook about this, for he has said on several occasions that that is the object of the exercise. If so, I expect him to say that the Amendment is warmly welcomed and that the House need not delay in more debate on it, because the Government will accept it.
When the two sides of the House have got together about a Bill and agreed on a voluntary timetable in perfect good faith, or if the Government have imposed a rigid timetable with a guillotine Motion, it is done in the vacuum that nobody knows what the Government will do with the Bill once that timetable decision has been reached. I do not criticise the present Government or anybody else. But the Minister of Public Building and Works, for example, who is a shrewd Parliamentarian may say when his next Bill goes to Committee that a number of controversial matters will not be dealt with there, having been covered on


Second Reading. Then, once the timetable is agreed, he may introduce a large number of Amendments, thus reducing the Opposition's time to debate the Bill.

Mr. Robert Cooke: rose—

Sir D. Glover: I shall not give way. I am on an important point and do not want to be disturbed.
The case I have just mentioned would be one where somebody uses the procedure for a political purpose. We have been in Parliament a long time and know that people do things for political purposes.
There may also be a case where there is no political motive. After Second Reading a Minister and his officials may decide that a Bill can be considerably improved by a number of Amendments. If they are worth while, they will need to be debated, and that will take time. The Opposition may have willingly agreed to

be satisfied with 20 hours in Committee. If the Government then propose, say, 20 Amendments the Opposition must have an overwhelming right to return to the Business Committee and say that instead of 20 hours they should have 26. As my right hon. Friend said, we are not saying that some maverick can go to the Business Committee on his own. We have have said that 20 hon. Members must indicate to the Committee in writing that they think that extra time is needed to debate a Bill because of the Government's new Amendments.
If the right hon. Gentleman really has the interests of the House at heart, I do not see how he can refuse to accept the Amendment. If he does refuse it, let us have no mistake that the object of the Government's Motion is to have a fixed Guillotine on nearly every Bill, and ruthlessly to ride roughshod over the opinion of back benchers. If the right hon. Gentleman does not intend that, he cannot refuse the Amendment.

10.20 p.m.

Dr. David Kerr: Turning first to the Amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), I put it to the House that to invite you, Mr. Speaker, to accept this responsibility would be to make hay of your traditional neutrality. The reference to the Minister of the Crown in the Motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council must be seen in relation to the fact that the Minister of the Crown is saddled with the job of doing something if he makes up his mind that the arrangement is not working.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames asks you, Mr. Speaker, to act as a judge. That is an attractive idea were it not to be seen in the context of what happens next. Let us suppose that the Amendment were accepted. An occasion might arise when a Committee is dealing with a problem. You, Mr. Speaker, well known as one of the more impatient among us, come to the conclusion that the conclusion that the Committee is proceeding too slowly and you decide that something has to be done about it.
What will you do? Is it right to expect you to come to the House and table a Motion that something needs to be done to speed up affairs in Committee? What happens to your traditional neutrality then? Would it not be open to the Opposition, of whatever party, to challenge you as being under the influence of Government pressures? It is not that Mr. Speaker of that day, whether next week, next year or 10 years hence, would be any less a person of integrity than you, Mr. Speaker. It is that an angry Opposition would sense and might even choose to make this an argument that the traditional neutrality of Mr. Speaker had been imposed upon by a Government seeking to expedite the passage of its legislation through the House.
I hope, therefore, that the House will see that the reference to a Minister of the Crown is a reference which enables action to be taken and that, were this responsibility transferred to Mr. Speaker, it would impede, if not absolutely obstruct, any further expedition of the passage of the Committee stage.
We have heard a lot of guff about Guillotines. It has been almost like a Guillotine debate the way that some right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been talking about the traditional cry going up "For Wilkes and liberty" and the rights of back-bench opinion. These are all the phrases of the Parliamentary charade. It is right to fish them out occasionally, to hang them up, to dry or to air them or whatever is appropriate for them. It is not, however, a Guillotine which is asked for.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) might have been fairer to the House had they recognised explicitly that what is proposed in the Motion is simply an extention of existing Standing Order No. 43, which has existed in our Standing Orders for many years but which had been forgotten because it has not been used very much.
The Procedure Committee considered that. They brought it out of the cupboard and it is now before us as a Motion. It is not a Guillotine. Let us consider how it differs from a Guillotine. I am open to correction, but to the best of my knowledge and recollection the Guillotine has never been applied since the Government came into power in October, 1964. That is a remarkable phenonemon when one thinks of the contentious legislation, the sterling quality of the Opposition—to which I am happy to pay tribute on many occasions—and, above all, the fact that the Government have got through a prodigious amount of legislation. I do not recollect any occasion on which a Guillotine Motion has been tabled by the present Government.

The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Charles Grey): There was one occasion.

Dr. Kerr: I am corrected by my hon. Friend. In this context, however, the difference of one is irrelevant. To have done it even once is a remarkable tribute, not merely to the fact that the Government get their business through. It is also—and let us pay tribute where it is due—due to the fact that the Opposition have adopted a responsible attitude in fulfilling their job. We all recognise this and the whole tenor of tonight's debate


is, in a sense, a tribute not only to the way the Procedure Committee itself—and I pay special tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), whose leadership there was so helpful—was an expression of this ability to come to terms on a matter of dispute. It is true that what we have before us is not what the Committee recommended and it is right for hon. Members to oppose it if they wish. That is fair enough.
What I am trying to illustrate is that, over the last three years, the question of a guillotine has never been a reality and this is due to the fact that this House functions, with exceptions, as an entity. When we talk about a Guillotine Motion we do not talk about the Business Committee procedure we have had for a long time and, above all, do not talk about it in relation to the new kind of procedure which, first of all, differs from the guillotine procedure in that the House is not invited to waste a day on a debate whose outcome is predictable. It is not invited to use that day fishing out all these outworn phrases—I do not say they are meaningless—which are repeated ad nauseam and come to have an irrelevance which does the House no good.
Instead, the Motion invites the House in certain circumstances to refer a matter to the Business Committee. That Committee is not a Government committee. It is a Committee of Chairmen with five hon. Members added. If that Committee meets, presumably it may well take a day to deliberate and report to the House so that, if the Opposition are really seeking a continuity of their traditional right of delay, there may be little to choose between a Guillotine Motion and reference to the Business Committee in that legislation will be set back by a day either way. Indeed, I would guess that, in certain circumstances, the Business Committee might even be the cause of greater delay than a day's Guillotine Motion.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying but it is not quite right. Although it may refer the date by a day, it will not take a further day of the Government's time, which is always a valuable thing to do.

Dr. Kerr: I accept this. The deferment by a day really amounts to much the same thing as the delay of a Guillotine Motion, with the difference that some of us on this side of the House would sooner devote the day that would be wasted on a Guillotine Motion to some more purposeful discussion of other matters, perhaps under Standing Order No. 9, which has been given by the Government in a new form and, I am happy to say, has already justified itself, although perhaps with unfortunate political results, as a way of embellishing the procedure of this House.
That is one of the ways in which we have improved the opportunities in the House, balanced by some reduction. The reduction is matched by the improvement in opportunities supplied by this Motion. That is one important difference between what is now proposed and a Guillotine Motion. Another difference is that a Guillotine Motion is a Motion whose result is predictable, whereas, by handling the reference to the Business Committee, we are not devoting a day to a wasteful debate. Nor can we predict accurately what the determinations of the Committee are likely to be. Clearly, the Opposition suspect that they will be helpful to the Government and if the Government really thought that frequently it would be otherwise, perhaps they might have hesitated before tabling this Motion. I recognise that, but these are the facts of Parliamentary life.
It would be a little hollowly hypocritical to pretend that the job of the Government is other than to get their business through, but I do not see this proposal other than as a move to take from the Floor of the House discussions which are more appropriate to the more concentrated atmosphere of a Committee.
There may be a slight drafting difficulty which might be considered. The Motion has no reference to the number of Members who would constitute a quorum of this Committee. It is true that Standing Order No. 43 has such a reference which establishes the number as seven, but the Motion has no such reference and nor has it a reference to Standing Order No. 43 which might cover the point. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to clarify that matter.
I sum up by urging the House to reject an Amendment which would hazard the


neutrality of Mr. Speaker and to support a Motion which does nothing to introduce a Guillotine Motion, but which allows the House to make the dispassionate examination of progress of which a Business Committee of Chairmen, including hon. Members opposite, would be more capable than the House standing assembled in a rather angry and contentious mood.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I speak on the Motion with some diffidence, because I voted for a somewhat similar Motion when it came forward with a batch of others about a year ago, although that Motion, of course, related only to the Finance Bill, which was the basis on which I voted for it. That at ally rate shows that I am not opposed to the Motion on principle, so to speak, merely because it contains a Guillotine and might help the present Government as against the present Opposition. Every Government must be able to get their business and I agree that the Finance Bill is necessary business for any Government. It was because of that that it seemed reasonable to agree that this kind of proposal was acceptable for the Finance Bill.
As every hon. Member knows, the power of the Guillotine already exists. However, the Motion greatly facilitates that power and means that a Guillotine can be obtained at any time without taking any part of the time of the House except a mere two hours. This is oiling the blade with a vengeance. The power to guillotine must be measured in balance. We must balance the need for the Government to get their business against the need for the Opposition to be able to delay business. The Opposition must retain the power to protest and the power to protest must go to the length of being able to hurt.
It is in this respect that the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) is absolutely and utterly wrong. He argued on the basis that a Guillotine was completely fair as between the two parties already and was a good thing in any event. That is contrary to all democratic doctrine. If we are to have a free democracy, the Opposition must be left the right to filibuster in case of need. If the hon. Gentleman had been in opposition for a little time, he would recognise the need.

Mr. Ray Mawby: He never will be; he will lose his seat.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Motion greatly simplifies the Guillotine machine. It has the effect of making the Guillotine available to the Government at any time. It applies to all Government Bills, without exception. It puts into the hands of the Government a power virtually to prevent anything in the nature of a filibuster by an Opposition, however strongly they may object to the policy of the Government of the day. It is absolutely unacceptable. I am happy to remind myself of the tradition that Dr. Guillotine lost his head by his own Guillotine.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I find it difficult to understand how a colleague of mine from the benches opposite in the Select Committee on Procedure can be in favour of this version when we made quite a different recommendation in the Select Committee and he never moved an Amendment to it. This was a unanimous recommendation. I would think that when we appoint a Select Committee consisting of Members from both sides of the House and that Committee makes a unanimous recommendation it is important to follow it up. I take rather a different view on this matter from that taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I always believe that the Guillotine procedure is a terrible waste of time for the House. It does the House a lot of harm in the country, and we want to find a sensible way of solving the problem.
I also have a rather more optimistic view than does my right hon. Friend of what will happen. I believe that the Government are on the way out, and therefore what I want is a system of running our machinery which is fair both for the Government and the Opposition.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I share the optimism of my right hon. Friend, and I think that everybody does. Everybody knows that the Government are on the way out. But I would remind my right hon. Friend that I conducted many Bills, as a Minister, against filibusters by the present Leader of the House without ever having to invoke the Guillotine. I was able to manage without, and I hope that the next Conservative Government will manage equally well.

Mr. Turton: I am not suggesting that we want the Guillotine, but I suggest that we want more flexible machinery than we have at present for the allocation of time and business. I believe that we can do a great deal by good sense and good will, and in voluntary agreements. Clearly that breaks down at a certain stage.
The Select Committee recommended that if we did not get that voluntary agreement we should do what is normally done in most assemblies, both in Europe and outside, namely, appoint a steering committee to arrange the conduct of proceedings on Bills. This is just the respect in which the Leader of the House has not followed our recommendation, although when I put a question to him when he gave evidence before the Committee he said he was attracted by the idea of a steering committee doing this very thing. The Motion breaks down because a Minister of the Crown, at an early stage, fixes the number of days and then appoints the steering committee to allocate the time within that fixed, determined number of days. That is why this appears to be a form of Guillotine without proper debate.
If the Government would reconsider this question they could keep the antedeluvian form of procedure of the guillotine when they wanted to use it, but they could also try to use the newer machinery of a steering committee in connection with the proceedings on Bills. Obviously when the Conservatives are in power they will have a majority on the steering committee, but when they are in opposition they will be in the minority. But we should discuss these matters in a reasonable way, with a member of the Chairmen's Panel in charge and, broadly speaking, we would get general agreement on both sides as to how a Bill should proceed in Committee or at any other stage.
If the Government fix the number of days for a Bill, before it is known how the Committee will operate and what kind of Amendments the Government and the Opposition are to bring forward, I do not think that we shall have anything like the reasonable discussion on the Bill that hon. Members on all sides of the House who are looking into the future want to see. I should find it difficult to vote against a Motion for a steering Committee, but the right hon. Gentle-

man has introduced this authoritarian idea so that by an edict he will say at the beginning how many days will be allotted to a Bill. I should find it impossible to support him in that.
When we appoint a Select Committee on Procedure which spends weeks trying to work out the best way to conduct public Bills, it is contempt of that Committee to bring forward a recommendation which is very different from the Select Committee's recommendation. If there were a steering committee on all Bills, it could be in constant session, changing its recommendations as the Bill proceeded and in view of the Amendments brought forward by the Government at a later stage. There would then be no need for my right hon. Friend's second Amendment because the steering committee would see that the nature of the Bill had been changed either by new factors arising or by the Government having second thoughts on the Bill. The Business Committee's timetable could then be changed as the Bill proceeded.
We can gain much by general agreement. The whole purpose of our serving on a Select Committee is to see whether we can find a common solution to a difficult problem. I am sorry that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure has been a notable absentee today. I wish that he had been here to add his voice to mine, because he was very keen on the idea of a steering committee, and I regret that the Government have abandoned him and our idea.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: This is a more historic debate than the rather jaded atmosphere of the Chamber might cause one to believe. The reason I say that is that in the constitution of this country the only sort of constitutional provisions, unlike the situation in every other civilised democracy, lie in the procedure of the House of Commons. Therefore, even though the procedures which we have had previously may seem very rough and blunt instruments, at least they are something, and tonight we are taking a big and fundamental step in reducing them to virtually nothing.
If the Government were proposing a satisfactory constitutional reform of the upper chamber, if they were proposing—though I would not agreed to it—to give us something in the nature of a supreme


court, or if they had any other original ideas for substituting for the procedure of the House of Commons a proper democratic constitution, I should look with a little more benevolence upon these streamlined provisions. But they are doing no such thing. They are destroying all that we have and putting nothing in its place.
I have a hideous feeling that in the end the first people who will suffer will be the Labour Party. In the history of social democracy, whether the Fourth Republic of France or the Weimar Republic in Germany, it has always been the people who destroyed, by the best wishes in the world, the old barriers against revolution who were the first to be cast into the furnace when it came to the crunch. I believe very strongly that this is a very dangerous path upon which we are embarking, and I do not agree with those of my hon. Friends who seem to think that there is something in these proposals. Until some proper constitutional provision has been made through the Upper Chamber, it is madness to cast away such supports as we have. They are blunt instruments and can be defeated on any logical argument, but, until something is put in their place, it is wrong to cast them aside.

10.45 p m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I was attracted by the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) until I looked again at what we are discussing. Mr. Speaker will be informed either that no general agreement to allot a specified number of days has been reached or that an agreement has been reached which, in the opinion of a Minister, is not working effectively. These two sets of decisions show that this will be the decision of a despot.
I will take the example of a Bill which came before a Standing Committee of which I was a Member and compare what happened to it then with what would happen under this proposal. At the first sitting of the Committee on the Prices and Incomes Bill, the present Foreign Secretary, who was then Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, said that he would be bringing in a number of new Clauses which would make certain changes in the Bill. Nevertheless, he said, as it was a very important Bill, we should pull out

all the stops and see that it was disposed of as soon as possible.
Discussion on the first Clause took some time, because all hon. Members wanted to see the new Clauses and some time elapsed before they appeared. When they were presented, one realised what a drastic change they made especially in view of Part III. But had this Standing Order been in operation, that new Part could have been debated in a relatively short period, yet it now forms the guts of the Act.
We must therefore be careful in giving the Executive or the Leader of the House the right to take this power and this is one of the main reasons why I support the second Amendment, in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) asks for reasonable changes. He does not ask that only one or two hon. Members should be involved but would require the signature of a number who were convinced that the likely Amendments would necessitate a change in an agreed timetable. After all, some other Bills have also appeared in Standing Committee and a Minister has found many Government Amendments necessary immediately discussions started.
It would be wrong to pass a Motion by which the Minister could in Committee—and only in Committee—suddenly decide to table large numbers of Amendments, yet the timetable previously allocated could not be changed. All back-benchers should, therefore, support the Amendment.

10.50 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I was somewhat surprised to see this new Standing Order and, having listened to the speeches made so far, I realise that the real background to this proposal has never been properly explained. I will, therefore, tell hon. Members of the basis for the new Standing Order coming into existence.
When we were discussing whether the Finance Bill should be sent upstairs, we in the Select Committee on Procedure, being aware that that was what the Lord President wished, discussed the possibility of saving the time of the House because we all know how many days are involved in this work during the summer months. It was on this and the final decision that we took on the Finance Bill—it was a


unanimous recommendation, but in a slightly amended form—that we thought that we could probably save time by having a procedure similar to that outlined in the new Standing Order.
The matter was fully discussed, many comments were made and we took evidence from responsible people in Government and Opposition to decide how the proposed Standing Order should be operated and whether it would be acceptable to the House. We finally decided, as a sort of package deal, to recommend a new Standing Order in these sort of terms. I wish to make it abundantly clear that the Select Committee did not recommend sending the Bill to Committee upstairs. I was surprised to see that it had been decided to take part of the package deal and promote this new Standing Order, but to decline absolutely to accept the unanimous Report of the Select Committee.
The Leader of the House said in replying to the debate on the last new Standing Order—he said it in his usual charming way; he really has a siren approach if he wishes—that if this new proposal to send the Bill upstairs does not work out satisfactorily, we could, towards the end of the year, recommit the whole issue to the Select Committee. I thought: "My goodness, even with sirens one must always beware of that falseness." If the Leader of the House proposed to get out of his difficulties resulting from the Finance Bill being sent to a Standing Committee by having the matter sent back to the Select Committee I, at least, would want to know that the proposals of the Select Committee—provided that they were unanimous—would he accepted by the Government—

Mr. Crossman: The Government did, in fact, accept the proposals, and we spent three days debating them with the Opposition, with very little support—except from the hon. Lady herself and one of two others on the Opposition side—for them. We pointed out that we did not like them altogether but that, as a compromise, we would accept them. They were half way satisfactory, and we tried to get them worked. So we did accept them.
It was on the other side that there was refusal to play. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West

(Mr. Iain Macleod) spent his time voting against the proposals, and speaking against them, and said perfectly bluntly to my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that he damn well was not going to have anyone else put in the position that this Standing Order as then drafted unanimously by the Select Committee put them.

Dame Irene Ward: That does not touch the point I was making at all. The Select Committee did not recommend that the whole of the Finance Bill should go to a Standing Committee. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that as a fair interpretation? Does he? [HON. MEMBERS: "Ask him again."] I am not talking about this Standing Order at the moment, but I say that the proposed Standing Order was part of the package deal, and that the Select Committee did not recommend that the Finance Bill in its entirety should be sent to a Standing Committee.

Mr. Crossman: The precise truth is that I understand that the Select Committee, being unable to reach a unanimous Resolution, sought a compromise in a Resolution which said that the Finance Bill would stay on the Floor of the House, but that elaborate machinery would be established for a voluntary timetable, with a threat behind it of certain action. That is what it worked out as a compromise between sending the Finance Bill to a Standing Committee and having no change.
That compromise was then adopted by the Government and opposed by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West and everyone on the other side. The right hon. Gentleman led the opposition against it, as he knows quite well. He quoted his speech in which he said that he would have nothing to do with what he described as dark, nefarious schemes for having what he called a so-called voluntary timetable with what was behind them, but that is what the Select Committee had agreed. We said, "We have failed there, but we will take the same machinery of voluntary timetabling, with a deterrent behind it, and apply it in the Standing Committee."

Dame Irene Ward: The right hon. Gentleman must know that I am discussing the Report of the Select Committee, and nothing else. That Report was


unanimous. It is quite true that there were discussions in the Select Committee, which can be read in exactly the same way as can the idiotic nonsense of the Chief Secretary—no wonder the country is in a chaotic condition. But we can also see that the Select Committee presented to the House of Commons a unanimous Report, and that Report did not recommend sending the Finance Bill in its entirety to a Standing Committee. From that point of view I criticise this new Standing Order.
I am not discussing what any of my hon. and right hon. Friends think. They are entitled to think what they like in a free democracy, if it is not destroyed by the Government of the day—which is in process of being done. We are all entitled to our views. I argue that the Government took and embellished what they thought was a very useful new Standing Order to help to get their Bills through and to give more power to the Executive. They refused to accept, because they did not like it, that part of the Select Committee's recommendation not to send the Finance Bill in its entirety to a Standing Committee. I do not think anyone can disagree with my presentation of what happened.
When the Leader of the House announced that if the new procedure for the Finance Bill to be taken in Standing Committee did not work properly it could be reconsidered by the Select Committee, I thought what on earth is the good of that, because, whatever the Select Committee recommended, the Leader of the House with his revolutionary mind would not agree with it. The way he has treated the Select Committee, on which I was proud to serve and of which I am still a member—and hope still to be so that I shall be able to twist the right hon. Gentleman's tail—was shocking. That little bit of siren voice at the end of his speech made me think—I had better not try to put in Parliamentary terms what I think of the Government Front Bench.
It is a monstrous thing. I do not mind straight political opinion, I have had that since my childhood. I do not mind that in the least—I enjoy it. What I do not like is this underhand way of introducing new Standing Orders without telling the House that this was complementary and a way of trying to help

as we did not recommend sending the Finance Bill in its entirety to a Standing Committee. The right hon. Gentleman is behaving as always. I think he has a double mind. He sometimes argues one thing and sometimes another. Schizophrenic is the word I am trying to think of. I do not like schizophrenic minds. It is a danger to democracy and freedom and to this country. I am not going to have his wretched Standing Order. If I could do it five times, I would vote five times against it.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. Iremonger: I saw in a newspaper the other day the story retold of the great Lord Salisbury who, on his way to the Chamber in another place, dropped the notes of his prepared speech, which were picked up by another Peer who could not fail to notice that the opening words were, "When I entered your Lordships House I had no intention of speaking". That is exactly my position. I had no intention of saying anything, but what I have heard said from this side of the House and from hon. Members opposite and the spectacle of the empty benches opposite make me feel that I cannot forbear to say one or two things on this Motion.
I am particularly glad to see the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) in his place, because it was he who first made me feel that I would not be able to contain myself listening to the debate. I thought there was some thing very sinister about the genial and patronising cynicism with which he referred to the House of Commons. His use of the words, "the Parliamentary charade" struck me as infinitely sinister. I thought there was something even more sinister in the rÔle in which he presented himself as a faux bonhomme when he said that the House functions as an entity. It is fundamental to my conception of the House of Commons that it does not function as an entity at all—or certainly at its best it does not—but that its prime function is to enable people with profound differences of opinion and opposing views to oppose one another and for the Goverment to have their way without opposition from the other side.
I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas Tooth) was quite right when he invoked democracy in this context,


although he said—which I thought even from him was a little disappointing—with what seemed to me unhappy satisfaction, "Any Government must get its business". I suppose that one must reluctantly concede that fact even from these benches, but I would rather emphasise one aspect of the matter, which is that the Government must not get its business to easily or too soon, or too often. In fact, I think that Burke had the matter right when he said that the prime condition of Parliamentary Government was that Members of Parliament should spend three-quarters of the year on holiday and there should be the absolute minimum of legislation and interference.
I say seriously that when we come to analyse the nature of democratic struggle in an elected assembly, in the end it comes down to this: the battle is a battle for time and for delay. That is all that we can do. The battle for delay and for time may not be the ideal battle to fight, but it is better, so long as we can have it, than the battle for blood. The alternative to the democratic battle for delay and for time is the battle in which blood is shed.
It is all very well for the Leader of the House to adopt a rather sneering posture, though I am glad if I misinterpret his expression. But I warn him not to take this too lightly becouse he is the guardian in this House of the rights of the House. He is not the servant of the Government. He is the servant of the House. I would like to be able to say that he is the best Leader of the House that we have ever had. I am sorry that I cannot. I refrain from saying so with no personal rancour at all because I am fascinated by many aspects of the right hon. Gentleman's character, his scintillating intellect and his mercurial mind. In fact, the mercuriality of his mind is the only salvation, that he is liable today to contradict with even more plausibility that which he said yesterday. That is the greatest hope I have of him from time of time. But I hope he will not overlook the importance of the principle and the importance to democracy itself which underlies the Amendment.
I thought that it could not have been more dramatically or emphatically

exemplified than it was by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), because surely the Amendment which allows the Business Committee to have a second look at this applies with utmost force to what happened in the Prices and Incomes Bill. An Amendment of fundamental principle was introduced at a time when, under this present Motion un-amended, the Guillotine would have been fixed, and what was really a major point of principle on a Second Reading point would have escaped without any proper discussion at all.
I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to signify that he intends to accept this Amendment. I am almost without hope because I am afraid he is a Socialist, and I think Stalin—or was it Lenin?—was right when he said that social democrats support democracy in the way that the rope supports the man who is hanged. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is not entirely out of tune with that analysis of his party's predilections, and I have very little hope of him.
However, it might not be out of place on this Motion if we on this side of the House, and especially those who are in a position to speak for the policy of the future, when we once more have responsibility through a Conservative Leader of the House for making contributions to procedure, were to pledge ourselves to ensuring that this Motion, if it is passed unamended now, is not allowed to remain in the Standing Orders of the House. It is all too much in tune with the persistent tendency of the Socialist Government to undermine and underplay the essential rôle of Parliament.
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite are so certain that they are right that they believe that they have done all that is necessary if they let people have a few minutes to prattle away and have their little turn, and they think that they can then wash it all out and get their business through. That is not the function of Parliament. The less of their business the Government get the better, and the more obstructive Standing Orders are to the Government the better conceived they are in the interests of the House of Commons. I hope, therefore, that we shall express firm resolution on our side that this state of affairs will not be allowed to prevail, if prevail it must


for a short time. In any case, we shall vote in support of the Amendment.

Mr. M. Stewart: rose—

11.12 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
I intend no discourtesy to the First Secretary of State. I understand that I have to move the Motion while the debate is proceeding. I put the Motion interrogatively at this stage. We have had a good day of discussion. The standard of the debate has been high. We have had some vigorous speeches, and many very good ones. The issues are important, and the object of the exercise is to stop late sittings. It would be illogical and nonsensical to go on sitting to a very late hour when that is our purpose.
I think that the answer of the Leader of the House to my question may affect quite considerably the length of the debates we shall have. I should like to know what his intentions are.

Mr. Crossman: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for putting the issue to us. We have had some very good debates, though our progress has not been quite as fast as I had expected. The Liberal Amendment took rather longer than I had thought it would, though it was most interesting.
We are making reasonable progress. I should not myself think it surprising if we spent some time on a procedure debate of this kind. It is a debate in which we must work hour by hour, not sparing ourselves. The only question is how far we are to go on tonight, and, if we should break off now, when we might finish. I think that there is still plenty of health and vitality in the Chamber. I was up last night until about 6.30 this morning, and I am feeling fine.
I suggest that we have a little discussion about how far we should go. I am prepared to talk sensibly about it, because I want good debates on each of these Motions, but I think we could make more progress than we have made. I am not content to get just this Motion through. I should like to get at least one or two others as well. I should be happy to talk about it through the usual channels and see how far we should go.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. M. Stewart: The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) raised a theme which has run all through the debate. If I may say so, his grasp of the essentials of Parliamentary procedure is a good deal sounder than his knowledge of the works of Lenin. When he has the leisure to look it up, he will see that his quotation was so ludicrously wrong that, if he were a less innocent person, he would be guilty of gravely misleading the House. But he can be acquitted of such an intent, just as, I understand, a heretic can escape damnation on grounds of invincible ignorance.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the right hon. Gentleman is an authority on the works of Lenin, though not, apparently, on the work of the House, perhaps he will give the correct quotation.

Mr. M. Stewart: Lenin was not, as the hon. Gentleman thought, a Social Democrat. Lenin was a Communist. He was explaining to some of his supporters why, at a particular juncture, they were voting to support the Social Democrats. What he said was, "We Communists support the Social Democrats in the way a rope supports a hanging man". If the hon. Gentleman will compare that with what he tried to say he will see how ridiculously wrong he got it. I would not have digressed if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) had not egged me on.
Let us take the hon. Member for Ilford, North in his happier vein when he said it was necessary that the Government should get its business, and also stressed—equally rightly—that the Opposition should have proper opportunity to oppose the Government.
The heart of this whole matter is—and it has been going on for quite a time in the history of the House—the effort to reconcile the two principles essential to democracy. The first of the two principles that are essential is that after proper discussion the majority shall be able to get their own way. The second


is that the minority shall have a fair opportunity to express their view with vigour so that it may attract interest and support in the country as well as in the House itself.
Another principle, which is at least very desirable for democracy, is that whatever time there is available for discussion of a Measure shall be intelligently used so that the discussion can help to inform the country at large of what the real issues are. That is the result we want to get in any arrangements about timetabling or the guillotine, or call it what you like. The House over the years has moved through various stages. To begin with we had no limit at all on debates until the Irish showed us what a vigorous minority can do if it likes in those circumstances.
Then we took a switch and had the Guillotine Motion. Now the limitation of this is that the House can put itself into the position where, when there is no Guillotine, people can filibuster all over the place. The result is not very helpful to democracy because the country outside gets the picture of a House wasting time rather than discussing matters intelligently. Or one swings to the opposite extreme and has a Guillotine at the Government's pleasure and perhaps some undue limitation of discussion.
Once the House had adopted the idea of the Guillotine it began—as it got used to operating it—to recognise that one must have some form of discussion between Government and Opposition as to the sharpness of the operation of the Guillotine. This has been gradually refined into what we have today, with the Business Committee and, occasionally, voluntary agreements on the handling of difficult Bills. That is the road we have travelled, but as things stand now it is quite clear that we have not yet reached a desirable lodging place along the road because the position at the present time can be very jerky indeed.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) ascribed a remark to Mr. Macmillan—I trust more accurately than the ascription to Lenin of his hon. Friend—and the remark had a real Macmillan ring about it. He explained that it did not matter so much if one let the Committee run on on Clause 1, because one got Clauses 4, 5 and 6 through without

the Committee knowing what had happened. That is exactly the remark of a clever Minister more interested in getting his Bill through Committee than whether the procedures of Parliament are ultimately a credit to him and to the House. Although a Minister may be very pleased if the Committee wastes time at the beginning, and then lets him slip a lot of things through, that is not a good way of legislating. If that sort of thing is to happen it would be much better to have an agreed timetable, with people thinking before they begin how much time it would be sensible to spend on each Clause. We propose introducing a greater degree of regularity and balance into what now has the possibilities of much greater restriction on the minority than I think hon. Members opposite have realised. That is why I recommend the proposal.
If they please, the Government can now move to guillotine any Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) made our blood run cold with pictures of the Weimar Republic, though I thought that there was a rather sketchy historical basis for what he said. What is our safeguard about which hon. Members have expressed such concern? The one precaution is that it takes the Government a day to get a guillotine Motion through, but they can always save that day by making the Guillotine that much sharper.
Most of us could recite in our sleep the stock speeches on both sides of the House in the debate on the Guillotine Motion. The right hon. Gentleman and I not only could recite them in our sleep but have almost done so on some occasions. The alleged safeguard is undignified in form and not valuable in substance, because in planning the operation the Government can say, "We shall get Third Reading by a certain day, and if we must spend a day on the Guillotine Motion there will be one day less to put down in the Motion on discussion of the Bill." I do not say that Governments do this ceaselessly, but as things stand they can do it. Therefore, it is not sensible to talk as if we had an age-old structure of defences against tyranny by a Government.
What is proposed instead? It is true that we abandon the alleged safeguard of the one-day Guillotine debate and substitute only a short discussion, but it is


now made clear, as it was not before, that the first emphasis is to be on the attempt to get voluntary agreement, that we are to carry on the historical process of trying to move away from uncertainty, and a jerking between no limit and the violent limit of the unplanned Guillotine, towards the concept of stopping to think in advance, and trying to decide a fair allocation of time for a Bill.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk said that in the Army and elsewhere the test of leadership was getting what one wanted without compulsion. Most of my time in the Army was spent in the ranks, and it did not feel at all like that.

Sir D. Glover: It is a compliment to the Government that they have had only one guillotine in three years.

Mr. Stewart: There is a serious point behind what the hon. Gentleman says. One could not run an army without the ultimate to sanction of compulsion, and one could not run a Parliament without an ultimate sanction to prevent the minority preventing the majority from getting their way. That certainly would not be democracy. But the aim is to encourage everybody to think and plan before one starts to use sanctions. That is exactly what the Motion does and why it is an advance in the evolution of our procedure.

Mr. David Steel: Will what the right hon. Gentleman proposes apply to Private Members' Bills? If so, how could it possibly work?

Mr. Stewart: No. The Motion begins
Where, in respect of a public Bill"—
[HON. MEMBERS: "It is the same thing."] I am sorry. I thought that the hon. Member said "Private Bills". Private Members' Bills, yes, although this would not normally be what was done with a Private Members' Bill. I want to make it clear that we see this as being the normal procedure for major Bills—that is, that time-tabling and voluntary agreement, which up to now we have used here and there, should become increasingly regarded as the normal, although not necessarily the universal, procedure.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What the right hon. Gentleman has said confirms, does it not, my suggestion that the intention is to resort to timetables much more frequently in the future than in the past?

Mr. Stewart: I do not know about much more frequently, but certainly more frequently. The point is that it is only on a superficial reading of events that anyone would see this as a move to restrict liberty.
At present, there is no effective safeguard against a Government restricting right, left and centre. Our proposal would take the really valuable element in our procedure, and that is a safeguard against arbitrary action—that is to say, the whole process of trying to get the sides together and planning a voluntary timetable, to give greater emphasis to that and to push the guillotine more and more into the background as only the ultimate sanction without which a democratic assembly could not work. That, basically, is the ground on which I reocmmend the Motion to the House.
As to his first Amendment, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames always argues persuasively, but I did not think that he was on a good wicket in this instance. It was not anything like as good a wicket as his second Amendment. The Minister will report that the agreement is working ineffectively. Whether an agreement is working effectively is a plain matter of fact. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I beg the House to listen. If the agreement provides that certain stages of the Bill should be reached by certain dates and it is apparent that no such thing will happen, that is a matter of fact.
I take the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that the reason for not keeping to the agreement might be, in the view of some people, the incompetence of the Minister or, in the view of others, the obstinacy and stupidity of the Opposition.,
The first question—whether the agreement is working—is a matter of fact. On the second, more complex question—whose fault is it is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that that should go to the arbitrament of Mr. Speaker? Is Mr. Speaker to give Rulings and say, "I find that the agreement is not working effectively and that this is due to the stupidity of the Opposition Members of the Committee", or alternatively, "I find that this is due to the incompetence of the Minister"? We could not possibly ask Mr. Speaker to do that.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Or both.

Mr. Stewart: Yes, or both. If Mr. Speaker is not to rule on why the agreement has broken down, if it is merely the question of whether it has broken down or is breaking down, that is a matter of fact and no more.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Minister says that it is a matter of fact. In that case, why is
the opinion of a Minister
written into the Standing Order? Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman said—it might have been a slip of the tongue—that it was a question of fact whether a certain stage would be completed by an apparently future date. Surely, that is a matter of opinion and Mr. Speaker is just as competent to assess that, and much more impartial, and seeming much more impartial, than the Minister in charge of the Bill.

Sir D. Glover: There is another point, which I do not think anyone else has raised. Once there is an agreed timetable, the Minister might say to me, "Will you come in and speak in this Committee on the Government side and reduce the amount of time for the Opposition", and then report, "We are not making enough progress." That would be legitimate political tactics but it would be a new situation which had never existed before.

Mr. Stewart: Once there is an agreed timetable. Government supporters will probably become a little more vocal than if there is not—there I agree. But does not the hon. Gentleman see that he is again talking not about whether the agreement is breaking down but who has caused it to break down? In the case he puts, there would be little doubt that the agreement was breaking down. He makes the point that the Minister would be causing the breakdown but is that question to be put to Mr. Speaker's arbitrament?
On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, there may be some room for opinion, but on any point on which people are upset or arguing, they will not be arguing about whether it is breaking down but whose fault it is that it is breaking down. That

is why his Amendment is not really to the point for this purpose.

Mr. Iain Macleod: This is a most important point on which the Leader of the House and I had some exchange earlier. The Leader of the House said some months ago, on 26th April, that this power was needed.
If there is no such agreement, or if the agreement has not been honoured."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1967; Vol. 745, c. 1516.]
The point I would like the First Secretary of State to address himself to is that we have had one experience of what we can call a gentlemen's understanding between the present Home Secretary, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and myself. That was to the general satisfaction of the House. In what way does the right hon. Gentleman say that that agreement was dishonoured, and if it was not dishonoured, why does he need a new practice?

Mr. Stewart: I am not sure I follow that question. The new practice proposed here, as far as the machinery is concerned, is, as the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has pointed out, exactly the device set out by the Select Committee itself. We did consider in drafting this Motion, in order to get the right balance between the rights of the Government and the rights of the Opposition, what the best balance would be and we had the model provided for us by the Select Committee. All I am saying is that I do not think that the insertion of Mr. Speaker instead of a Minister here would be workable.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman is not taking the point I am making. We have had some experience under a Sessional Order. In that experience, the vote never took place later than midnight. There was a gentlemen's agreement. What is unsatisfactory with that and why does the right hon. Gentleman wish to change it?

Mr. Stewart: I do not follow this at all. If the agreement does not break down, the rest of the Order does not arise. In this Motion, we are not merely considering what happens in that instance. We are making a general rule for the future and we must provide for what will happen if the order does not


work. The Select Committee itself foresaw this possibility and provided for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), referring to the judgment of whether an agreement has broken down or not, pointed out that Mr. Speaker is not there in the Committee, whereas the Minister is.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: rose—

Sir D. Glover: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I have given way several times and I do not think I can give way again on this point.

Sir D. Glover: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I must leave this issue. There are other matters to be discussed and we could continue to discuss this indefinitely.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I cannot give way again. I have done so several times, both now and earlier. Hon. Members have had plenty of opportunity to put their arguments.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman is missing the point.

Mr. Stewart: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He spoke of Mr. Speaker not being present—we are now discussing matters in Standing Committee—whereas the Minister is. Although Mr. Speaker is not there, a member of the Chairmen's Panel is and he could report to Mr. Speaker. Secondly, the Standing Order does not in fact limit the opinion to that of the Minister in Standing Committee and an earlier Order has provided for other Ministers, not being Members of the Standing Committee, to drop in occasionally. Surely, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong on both points.

Mr. Stewart: I am not wrong on the major point, which is that Mr. Speaker is not there and therefore cannot give a personal opinion. Secondly, it is perfectly clear from general practice that this Minister would be the Minister in charge of the Bill. None of the interventions has dealt with the point that

whenever there is any real argument, it will be not about whether the agreement has broken down, but whose fault it is that it has broken down. It is quite impossible to ask Mr. Speaker to arbitrate on that question.

Sir D. Glover: rose—

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will have to forgo it this time.

Sir D. Glover: I am not satisfied.

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman will say that he is not satisfied however many times I give way. I have been patient enough with him.

Sir D. Glover: rose—

Mr. Stewart: No.

Sir D. Glover: Why not?

Mr. Stewart: I will continue when the hon. Gentleman lets me.
I come now to the second Amendment in which the hon. Member for Ormskirk professed interest and of which he claimed co-parentage. It is suggested that if 20 hon. Members feel that the addition of Amendments creates a new situation, the process has to go back to square one in the Business Committee. I do not regard this as a major part of the argument, but it is not negligible. I have been long enough in the House to know that it is always possible for a party as large as the major Opposition party is likely to be to get 20 of its members to sign anything in line with general party policy.

Sir D. Glover: Oh.

Mr. Stewart: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would listen; I listened to him when he was making his case.
It would be perfectly possible for this to be used in the most political way, in the fullest sense of that term. Secondly, it would be possible to use it so to delay as to break the first rule: making it possible for the majority in the House to get the result it wants, particularly when we are considering the Finance Bill when it could be used in such a way that the Government would be in an impossible position because of the working of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act which obliges the Finance Bill to be got through by a certain time.
I remember one occasion when some of my hon. Friends and I seriously embarrassed the Conservative Government by virtue of the fact that the Army Act has to be got through by a certain date, or it would otherwise be illegal either to pay or to discipline the Army. By exploiting that situation we were able to get a number of important concessions from the Government. While that door was open, we were entirely entitled while in opposition to wriggle through it as much as we could, but it did not surprise me or anyone else that after the crisis was over the Government firmly took the opportunity to close that door for ever, and they were quite right to do so. I do not think that the Government ought, by accepting the Amendment, to put themselves in a position where they could be completely outmanoeuvred because of the operation of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act on the date that the Finance Bill has to be passed.
The House must not suppose that in this Motion, or in refusing to accept the Amendment, it is abandoning a single safeguard which it has at present. There is nothing whatever in the present situation to prevent a Government by use of their majority imposing a fixed timetable for a Bill, in Committee or in the whole House, and then putting down as many Amendments as they please, saying that they must be got through within the fixed timetable.
If it is so impossible to provide for a fixed timetable without an Amendment of this sort, why has no attempt been made to remedy that situation in all the years we have known of the operation of the guillotine? I think that the real answer is that behind all formalities there is, believe it or not, a certain degree of mutual trust between the different parties in the House. We know that a Government could behave outrageously by having fixed a timetable and then jammed down a large number of Amendments and so made the timetable nonsense.
They could do that now. But that is not the way in which Governments behave, and I give the clearest assurance that if at any time when the Business Committee part of the new Standing Order were in operation a large number of new Amendments were put down, the Government would immediately enter

into consultations with the Opposition to see what was the appropriate and fair way of dealing with the situation. It would no more be this Government's intention to outmanoeuvre the Opposition by trying to squeeze a mass of Amendments into an already agreed timetable, beyond what it could reasonably bear, than it has been the intention of Governments in the past.
It is fair to say that all our rules must be interpreted in the light of a certain amount of mutual confidence, and a Labour Government particularly can ask for the confidence of the House in their respect for the rules of the House and their reluctance to thrust through legislation against the will of the House. I say that because in the years since the war, there have been nine years of Labour Government, when the guillotine has been used on four occasions, and 13 years of Conservative Government. Would any hon. Member opposite care to hazard a guess how many times the Conservative Government have used the Guillotine? They have used it 15 times in 13 years, as against our four in nine years. Yet one hears some hon. Members opposite coming forward with all their suspicions when a few flecks of blood are to be found on the hands of this party and they come to the argument imbrued up to the elbows.
Do not let us have this rather nonsensical line of argument that it is totally impossible for the party opposite to trust the Labour Government. I do not care for the idea of a consensus in general. I believe that on great social and economic matters profound differences of philosophy divide the parties, but I believe equally strongly that we are united in a desire to see the democratic form of Government work, and that means, as I said, a proper chance for the minority to express its view and deploy its arguments, in the knowledge that in the end the will of the majority ought to prevail.
To make all that work we must have a degree of mutual confidence, and I have just given figures to show why we can reasonably ask the other side to give that confidence to us. I say also on behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends that despite the much more questionable record of hon. Members opposite in these matters we equally give that confidence


to them. Against that background of mutual confidence, I believe that this Standing Order represents a real advance in our procedure to provide for the rights both of majority and of minority and for the shrewd and intelligent use of the available time.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: May I answer a point which the right hon. Gentleman made in the last few sentences of his speech about the use of the guillotine? Surely the use of the Guillotine depends on the responsibility or irresponsibility of the Opposition. Since the Guillotine has been used only once during the Government's term of office since 1964, I contend that that shows a responsible Opposition. I have been opposite the Leader of the House in the course of Bills, but it seems that I am blamed for the fact that he has not had to use the Guillotine against me. I say that it was responsibility on my part and that it is not for the Opposition to force the Government to use the Guillotine.
Earlier in his speech the First Secretary gave the House two principles on which a Government should get their business. They were that a Government should be allowed to get their business, first, after discussion in which the minority could express their views and, secondly, after a debate which would be informative of the public of the issues between the parties. They were very sound arguments—very sound arguments against the Motion.
The right hon. Gentleman said that in future the voluntary agreement would be the normal but not the universal procedure. This is all wrapped up with the Motion in front of us, and I fear that this Motion may in the case of the present Government be the normal procedure in future. That is why I oppose it. The purpose of the Motion is to facilitate Government business. It should not have been drafted merely to facilitate Government business, merely to make it easier for the Government to get their business and merely to remove proper opposition. It does that in reducing that opposition on a Guillotine Motion to a period of two hours.
If they come before the House with a timetable which they say has failed, and

if they wish to impose a timetable, the Government should be obliged to justify their claim to curtail debate in that way by pointing to unreasonable obstruction of Government business—not merely to say that the debate has been long and detailed but to say that there has been something unreasonable about the opposition. The result of this Standing Order may well be that the Government will no longer have to justify a Guillotine Motion. If the debate is restricted to two hours, it is easy for the Government to get away with such a Motion.
May I draw attention to page 10 of the Sixth Report of the Select Committee:
If, however, a particular agreement was not being respected, it would be for the Government to table a motion in the House to achieve the objects of the Steering Committee. Mr. Speaker would be able to decide, in accordance with Standing Order No. 31 (Closure of debate), the length of debate which would be justified for such a motion, in the circumstances of the case.
I suggest that the House should leave it to Mr. Speaker under Standing Order No. 31 to decide the length of the debate and that it should not be restricted in the Motion to two hours. Having been a Government back-bench Member for some time, I have rejoiced in the imposition of the Guillotine. All Government back-bench Members do. Ministers are always under pressure from their own back-benches to put on the Guillotine, because then back-bench Members on the Government side have a chance to speak in the debates. As a result, the Guillotine is a double cut on Opposition time. It keeps them to a timetable and allows the Government side to enter the debate at perhaps inordinate length.
So we must be careful about the imposition of the Guillotine, although I am entirely with the Government in wishing to further the voluntary agreement of the timetable. The Sixth Report of the Select Committee says:
Until there is greater experience in the making of voluntary agreements, Your Committee consider that Governments should continue to rely on the traditional form of guillotine when there has been no agreement reached.
The Committee said that until there were safeguards no new form of procedure should be adopted.
The safeguards are set out admirably in my right hon. Friend's Amendments. In the first, he makes Mr. Speaker rather


than the Minister the arbiter. The House will want to know, when a Motion is debated, whether the voluntary agreement worked effectively and not whether the Minister thought that it had. This matter should not be tabled merely at the Minister's discretion. Under the Motion, the Minister in charge of the Bill, or, as my right hon. Friend said, any Minister, can table the Motion, which will then, of course, be debated.
Under my right hon. Friend's Amendment, Mr. Speaker would have to decide whether the Motion would be tabled and therefore debated. On many occasions Mr. Speaker has to decide whether or not the time of the House should be occupied on a particular subject and this should be one such occasion. There are many occasions on which Mr. Speaker must decide in protecting minority interests. This should be one, and the House should not be forced to debate a curtailed Guillotine Motion merely at the Minister's discretion. The Minister should not be the arbiter.
The second Amendment must surely be acceptable. The Business Committee must be able to consider a new situation. We have seen again and again how Bills can change before they are even debated in Committee, and certainly during the Committee stage. The Prices and Incomes Bill, many Finance Bills and the Land Commission Bill were all radically changed and no one could have set down a timetable for them at the beginning of the Committee stage.
Again, I quote from the Report of the Select Committee:
If it were possible to make an objective assessment of the time needed for the consideration of a Bill, which could be adjusted if necessary from time to time, and if this programme could be observed, then there would be general advantages in the more even examination of legislation.
I repeat those important words,
…which could be adjusted if necessary from time to time"—

Mr. Turton: My hon. Friend will find that this is put even more directly on page 10, to the effect that supplementary recommendations could be made in appropriate cases. That was exactly

the point of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd).

Mr. Page: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that confirmation. This procedure would be impossible without some safeguard to return it to the Business Committee when there were substantial Amendments.
The First Secretary gave an assurance that the Government would not table substantial Amendments which would alter the Bill. With great respect to him, he cannot give that assurance. Time and again when a Bill has been presented by the Government, it is realised, after it has been drafted, that there is much still to be added to it. If it were not so there would be no point in having a Second Reading. The House must have some effect in its debates, as well as outside opinion. If there are substantial Amendments, the timetable should be altered and the House should have the power to force an alteration in the way suggested in the Amendment. If the First Secretary is prepared to give this assurance, why not write it into the Standing Order?

Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Prices and Incomes Act was fundamentally altered during its passage through Parliament?

Mr. Page: I have already mentioned that Measure as well as others. If the First Secretary is prepared to give this assurance, he should write it into the Motion. He has the words in which to write it, for they appear in the Amendment.

Sir D. Glover: Would not my hon. Friend agree that no Opposition could enter into a voluntary timetable on a Bill without the assurance given in the Amendment.

Mr. Page: That is so. I have said that the whole Motion is impossible without the Amendment. It has been said that the Motion is like a pocket guillotine. Perhaps it should be described as a "mini-guilli". Like other minis, it lacks the traditional safeguards. We cannot support the substantive Motion without the safeguards set out in the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

Division No. 14.]
AYES
[11.57 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Holland, Philip
Prior, J. M. L.


Astor, John
Hornby, Richard
Pym, Francis


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Awdry, Daniel
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridley, Hn, Nicholas


Boardman. Tom
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Body, Richard
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Royle, Anthony


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott, Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Kimball, Marcus
Silvester, Frederick


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S )
Sinclair, Sir George


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, John


Carlisle, Mark
Lane, David
Stainton, Keith


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Clark, Henry
Longden, Gilbert
Stodart, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Lubbock, Eric
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Cooke, Robert
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Maddan, Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S, L. C.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Farr, John
Monro, Hector
Walters, Dennis


Fletcher-Cooke, Charies
Montgomery, Fergus
Ward, Dame Irene


Fortescue, Tim
More, Jasper
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Webster, David


Glover, Sir Douglas
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Goodhart, Philip
Murton, Oscar
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Grieve, Percy
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Gurden, Harold
Nott, John
Worsley, Marcus


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wright, Esmond


Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Page, Graham (Crosby)



Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hastings, Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner
Mr. Reginald Eyre and


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Powell, Rt. Hn. J Enoch
Mr. Anthony Grant.




NOES


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Eadie, Alex
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Alldritt, Walter
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lomas, Kenneth


Anderson, Donald
Ennals, David
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Ensor, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Faulds, Andrew
MacColl, James


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fernyhough, E.
Macdonald, A. H.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael


Barnes, Michael
Foley, Maurice
Mackintosh, John P.


Barnett, Joel
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Maclennan, Robert


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Binns, John
Galpern, Sir Myer
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bishop, E. S.
Ginsburg, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Blackburn, F.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)


Boardman, H.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marks, Kenneth


Booth, Albert
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mendelson, J. J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gregory, Arnold
Millan, Bruce


Boyden, James
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hannan, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Brooks, Edwin
Harper, Joseph
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Carmichael, Neil
Hazell, Bert
Moyle, Roland


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Newens, Stan


Coe, Denis
Hooley, Frank
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Conlan, Bernard
Horner, John
Oakes, Gordon


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
O'Malley, Brian


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Howie, W.
Orbach, Maurice


Dalyell, Tarn
Hoy, James
Orme, Stanley


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Huckfield, Leslie
Oswald, Thomas


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hunter, Adam
Park, Trevor


Delargy, Hugh
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Dewar, Donald
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dickens, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman


Dobson, Ray
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lee, John (Reading)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rees, Merlyn







Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Swain, Thomas
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Rose, Paul
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Whitaker, Ben


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
White, Mrs. Eirene


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Thornton, Ernest
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Sheldon, Robert
Tinn, James
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Urwin, T. W.
Woof, Robert


Slater, Joseph
Varley, Eric G.
Yates, Victor


Spriggs, Leslie
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)



Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stonehouse, John
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

Amendment proposed: In line 24, at and insert:

(4) In any case in which subsequent to submission by the Business Committee of their recommendation in respect of the time to be allotted for discussion of any Bill or any part of a Bill amendments to that Bill or part of a Bill are tabled by a Minister or by the Member in charge of the Bill which in the opinion of not less than 20 Members signified in writing are likely to raise matters requiring discussion additional to that likely to arise on the Bill in the form in which it was considered by the Business Committee, the Busi-

ness Committee shall give further consideration to the time required for consideration of the Bill and shall make a further recommendation to the House as to what further time (if any) shall be allotted to the consideration to the Bill, and the preceding paragraphs of this Order shall apply to such recommendations.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 149.

Dobson, Ray
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pavitt, Laurence


Dunnett, Jack
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Pentland, Norman


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, John (Reading)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan
Price,William(Rugby)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rees, Merlyn


Ennals, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Ensor, David
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rose, Paul


Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, James
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Macdonald, A. H.
Sheldon Robert


Foley, Maurice
McGuire, Michael
Short,Rt.Hn.Edaward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mckay, Mrs. Margaret
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mackintosh, John P.
Slater, Joseph


Galpern, Sir Myer
Maclennan, Robert
Spriggs, Leslie


Ginsburg, David
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Stonehouse, John


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Swain, Thomas


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Gregory, Arnold
Marks, Kenneth
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mendelson, J. J.
Thornton, Ernest


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Millan, Bruce
Tinn, James


Hannan, William
Miller, Dr. M. S,



Harper, Joseph
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Tuck, Raphael


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mitchell, R C.(S'th'pton, Test)
Urwin, T. W.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Varley, Eric G.


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hazell, Bert
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Moyle, Roland
Wellbeloved, James


Hooley, Frank
Newens, Stan
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Horner, John
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Whitaker, Ben


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Oakes, Gordon
White, Mrs. Eirene


Howie, W.
O'Malley, Brian
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hoy, James
Orbach, Maurice
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Huckfield, Leslie
Orme, Stanley
Woof, Robert


Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, Thomas
Yates, Victor


Hunter, Adam
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Park, Trevor
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

Main Question put:—

Division No. 16.]
AYES
[12.14 a.m.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dobson, Ray
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Alldritt, Walter
Dunnett, Jack
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody,. Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lee, John (Reading)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Eadie, Alex
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ennals, David
Lomas, Kenneth


Barnes, Michael
Ensor, David
Lubbock, Eric


Barnett, Joel
Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Fernyhough, E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Binns, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacColl, James


Bishop, E. S.
Foley, Maurice
Macdonald, A. H.


Blackburn, F.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McGuire, Michael


Boardman, H.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Booth, Albert
Ginsburg, David
Mackintosh, John P.


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Maclennan, Robert


Boyden, James
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Bradley, Tom
Gregory, Arnold
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Brooks, Edwin
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hannan, William
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harper, Joseph
Mendelson, J.J.


Buchan, Norman
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Millan, Bruce


Carmichael, Neil
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hattersley, Roy
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Coe, Denis
Hazell, Bert
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Conlan, Bernard
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshaw)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Horner, John
Morris,Charles R. (Openshaw)


Dalyell, Tam
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Howie, W.
Moyle, Roland


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hoy, James
Newens, Stan


Davies Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Huckfield, Leslie
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oakes, Gordon


Delargy, Hugh
Hunter, Adam
O'Malley, Brian


Dewar, Donald
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Orbach, Maurice


Dickens, James
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Orme, Stanley







Oswald, Thomas
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Park, Trevor
Slater, Joseph
Wellbeloved, James


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Spriggs, Leslie
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Pavitt, Laurence
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Whitaker, Ben


Pentland, Norman
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
White, Mrs. Eirene


Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Stonehouse, John
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Swain, Thomas
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Rees, Merlyn
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Woof, Robert


Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)
Thornton, Ernest
Yates, Victor


Rose, Paul
Tinn, James



Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Tuck, Raphael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Urwin, T. W.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Sheldon, Robert
Varley, Eric G.
Mr. Ioan L. Evans.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pink, R. Bonner


Astor, John
Hastings, Stephen
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Prior, J. M. L.


Awdry, Daniel
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Boardman, Tom
Hornby, Richard
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Body, Richard
Howell, David (Guildford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Iremonger, T. L.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott, Nicholas


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinetead)
Silvester, Frederick


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sinclair, Sir George


Carlisle, Mark
Kimball, Marcus
Smith, John


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stainton, Keith


Clark, Henry
Lane, David
Stodart, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Cooke, Robert
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Maddan, Martin
van Straubenzee, W. R.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vickers, Dame Joan


Eyre, Reginald
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Farr, John
Monro, Hector
Walters, Dennis


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Montgomery, Fergus
Ward, Dame Irene


Fortescue, Tim
More, Jasper
Weatherill, Bernard


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Webster, David


Glover, Sir Douglas
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Goodhart, Philip
Murton, Oscar
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Grant, Anthony
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Grant-Ferris, R.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Worsley, Marcus


Grieve, Percy
Nott, John
Wright, Esmond


Gurden, Harold
Osborn, John (Hallam)



Hall, John (Wycombe)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Mr. Timothy Kitson and




Mr. Anthony Royle.

Resolved,

Allocation of time to bills.
(1) Where, in respect of a public Bill either—



(a) Mr Speaker has been informed that no general agreement to allot a specified number of days or portions of days to the consideration of the Bill in Committee or on report has been reached, or



(b) any general agreement of which Mr Speaker has been informed is, in the opinion of a Minister of the Crown, working ineffectively,



a motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown that the Committee on the Bill shall report the Bill on or before a specified day, and that the Business Committee shall make recommendations to the House as to the number of days or portions of days to be allotted to the consideration of the Bill in Committee, on report or on Third Reading, and as to the time by which proceedings on any parts into which they may divide the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion in Committee or on report and any further recommendations which may in their opinion be necessary to ensure the bringing to a conclusion of the proceedings on the parts of the Bill allotted to those days or portions of days; and not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings on such a motion Mr Speaker shall proceed to put any question necessary to dispose of those proceedings.



(2) For the purposes of this Order the Business Committee shall consist of the Chairmen's Panel together with not more than five other Members to be nominated by Mr Speaker.



(3) When the Business Committee shall have reported the resolution or resolutions containing their recommendations to the House, the provisions of sub-paragraph (c) of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) shall apply to the proceedings on any motions for the consideration of such report and on the consideration of the said report.



That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies added to the Select Committee—[Mr. Armstrong.]

ROBERTS-ARUNDEL LIMITED (DISPUTE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Armstrong.]

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Arnold Gregory: The case of Roberts-Arundel brings to the minds of all hon. Members something more than an industrial dispute at a small firm in my constituency. It throws up a king-sized issue which, for over 12 months, has concerned hon. Members representing constituencies in the greater Manchester area and the surrounding district—an advanced industrial area that is important to the economy. The dispute concerns basic trade union principles and goes to the foundations of labour relations, or, in this case, the painful lack of them.
For Stockport, it has been a long and distressing struggle for 12 long, weary months. In July, 1966 the long established firm of Arundel-Coulthard was taken over by the Roberts Company, of Sanford, South Carolina, U.S.A., and the firm was renamed Roberts-Arundel. Events followed quickly. In November of that year the first women workers were engaged, and some of the men were made redundant. On 28th November more women workers were employed and the factory downed tools. The national agreement was broken by the firm, and between 5th and 9th December notices were issued. The strike was declared official, arid the firm withdrew from the Engineering Employers' Association. One hundred and forty men came out on strike and the firm said that they had been sacked.
The developments since then are well known to most hon. Members. There has been a continuous daily picket of the factory, and there have been clashes between pickets and workers and between pickets and police. People have been bruised and injured, and there has been

a most distasteful series of incidents in the town. On 22nd February, over 1,000 workers marched through the town, and there was a similar demonstration on 21st March and another to celebrate May Day. In September, we had a protest week. Sometimes the demonstrations brought about serious disturbances. People were hurt and there was a number of arrests. Great trouble and concern followed the incidents. For the town and the country Roberts-Arundel has become an ugly symbol.
What about the efforts to bring the struggle to an end? There are many, but the result is nil. The American head of the firm, Robert E. Pomeranz, who is based in Sanford, North Carolina, saw my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in April, February, March, and May. The Mayor of Stockport and representatives of the firm met, but after long discussions in which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) took a leading part these efforts proved to be in vain and the time spent was wasted. In September, Mr. Pomeranz saw my right hon. Friend again. Then we had the York meeting, and to cap it all we saw the turn-down of what became known as the Barnard plan.
It has been a long drawn out, weary and unproductive business. We have had the usual knock-about Communist plot charges. There was also the charge that the local Labour Party was up to its neck in the business, and, according to a report in The Times of 25th February, so were the Tories. They stated clearly their political objectives. According to the report, two leading Tory spokesmen had sent a letter to the newspapers saying:
If the Labour-dominated council are not capable of defending their law-abiding citizens against trade union terrorism from outside, then those citizens will make their own judgment in the forthcoming municipal elections.
Feelings run high, but it might be worth adding that what was lost in bad labour relations and on the industrial side could not be turned to anybody's political gain. We in Stockport were the losers all round.
What about the industrial side? The debating activity was intense here. Where did the fault lie? Mr. John Tochier, district secretary of the Amalgamated


Engineering Union, was categoric. He said:
It is a fundamental principle involved. It is the whole basis of the worker's right to participate in collective bargaining with his or her employer to reach agreement. I am determined to see that the firm does not get away with this.
Mr. Pomeranz has talked of the purchasing cost of Roberts-Arundel. He says that it cost him £500,000 and a further investment of £500,000 also for modernising, painting the factory, positioning machinery, and so on. He said:
We have had 13 wildcat strikes in 15 months and Stockport's union leaders seemed determined to rule or ruin.
Mr. Pomeranz repeated that in a letter to The Guardian on 29th November. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South replied to it the following day, when he pointed out:
In an attempt at mediation, I pressed the management to give particulars of these strikes'. As their personnel manager replied to my several questions, it transpired that a stoppage of an hour or two had occurred because (1) there was no drinking water on the premises, (2) the toilets were dirty and (3) on a bitterly cold day there was no heating.
He went on to say that the other "wildcat strikes" were occasioned by a similar lack of accepted facilities, and he said that
the personnel manager explained that following the stoppages, these things had been put right.
It is clear that had there been normal trade union and employment practices, this kind of thing would not have occurred.
The question which follows upon all this is whether Stockport is a difficult labour relations town. We have the word of Mr. Charles Barnard, Managing Director of Mirrlees National Ltd., of Stockport, and chairman of the local branch of the Engineering Employers' Association, who spoke of the labour relations as follows:
I suppose they are as good as anywhere in the country. The Disputes Committee of the main unions concerned is known to be quite a tough one, but through the years, I think, we have found ways to live with it and them and we are getting less trouble today, with this exception, than we had a few years ago.
Another opinion was given in the B.B.C. sound programme on a Roberts-

Arundel survey on 17th September. Mr. Mayhew Saunders, an expert on American production techniques and their application in this country, said that he
did not think the firm was a typical case to illustrate the role of United States companies who want to change industrial practices here.
He pointed out that he thought that Stockport was a difficult town for labour relations, and he said:
They are fairly good, but I know that a lot of this comparative quiet is bought at not insisting on what I would regard as perfectly proper improvements in practice.
The situation has, however, concerned even the United States Senate and Congress. A sub-committee's report of both Houses, "Future of U.S. Foreign Trade Policy", states:
It would be wise for private U.S. corporations to recognise the valid concerns of the host countries and act accordingly in regard to employment practices.
Those are home thoughts that are exported. They should be taken very seriously by companies which come here to practise rather than follow the example of Roberts-Arundel. That is surely the lesson to be learned from all this. We can strongly doubt whether the United States can teach us any instant methods, even in productivity.
We might well ask what has been the sum total in cost to Stockport. There have been arrests. There have been demonstrations. There have been clashes between pickets and the police. Men and their families have lived on strike pay for 12 months. The cost to industry is also heavy. I understand that, at the 12 firms in Stockport affected, there have been 10 major walk-outs of four hours each, the total number of workers each time being about 4,000. This means that 160,000 hours have been lost to these firms.
If we take this to mean that half at least of the men are direct production workers, the total is between 80,000 and 100,000 lost hours at £5 per hour per head/hour production work, which means £400,000 to £500,000 lost to these firms in production, three-quarters of it in exports. The global estimate is 1¼ million man hours lost in the town at a cost of £2 million to £2¼ million in production for the town. No wonder a leading industrialist commented bitterly that he did not think that Mr. Pomeranz wanted a settlement. Certainly,


he has realised a closure. That is what we face today.
Can we let the situation go on and disrupt the life of the town further? These direct questions must be put to Pomeranz and to Roberts-Arundel. We know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has been battling on with Pomeranz. We know that today there has been announced a fixed date for the closure in mid-January but, knowing Pomeranz, how can hon. Members and our trade union friends take his word for this and expect fair play between now and mid-January when his will will be carried through?
The Guardian, in its leading article on 16th November, said:
If a trade union were to behave in this way—ignoring established procedures, spurning offers of reconciliation, rejecting agreements—there would be no shortage of critics, not least in the present Government, to denounce it.
It would be called irresponsible, trouble making, wicked. Perhaps the time has come for the Government to speak out on the Roberts-Arundel issue. There is no doubt that the time has come to settle. … We have taken as much of this … as we can stomach.
Journalists too have been interested. Mr. E. K. Brunert, in the Stockport Express, two weeks ago, said that he was asked by a friend what he would write about in his paper when there were no more dispatches from the battlefront at Chestergate. He replied that, for the sake of Stockport and its people, he would like nothing better.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend that there is the greatest possible case for holding a full-scale inquiry even at this juncture into the affair to see how we can prevent the Pomeranz doctrine ever being applied again in the country and I hope that he will consider appropriate legislation to go with it if need be. No one would wish the grim, painful experience of Stockport on any other firm or town in the country. In Stockport, we have had enough.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: Tonight, I believe, we close a sad and sorry story of industrial relations if the statement made by Robert Pomeranz is his moment of truth. But the recurring theme in this dispute is that the chairman of this company time and again has shown that he is a stranger to truth. He has lied throughout and may, in fact, be lying tonight.
This morning I was telephoned by a national newspaper informing me that its correspondents had been in touch with Mr. Pomeranz at Stockport when he arrived there this morning and that, when questioned by reporters, he had replied, "I saw the two Members of Parliament for Stockport this morning and they will tell you what I have to say". He saw neither my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Gregory) nor myself. Nor did he communicate with our homes, the House, or any of the places which we might frequent.
The two hon. Members for Stockport wish to make it quite clear that at no time throughout this bitter dispute, contrary to what the B.B.C. broadcast tonight, have they attacked the foreign ownership of this company.
I think that I can speak for my hon. Friend when I say that both of us are concerned that foreign investment should not be spurned, but should be welcomed, provided that it meets certain conditions: where it does not lead to foreign domination of any particular sector of British industry; where it introduces new fields of employment; where it helps to establish modern technology; where the management is geared to the productive capacity of its people, machinery and market potential; and, as stated, by the President of the Board of Trade, where firms which want to open businesses in this country are well aware of the traditions and requirements which will be theirs if they do so.
This applies nationally as well as to Stockport. A militant trade union town, proud of its craftsmanship, its exports and its industrial relations, has been spurned by this gentleman. Far from meeting any of the requirements, Mr. Pomeranz has done exactly the opposite. He acts like a little führer in a totalitarian State. He treats his workers as chattels. He has been lying to the Press and public, to his executives and, no doubt, to his investors.
I tried on three occasions to mediate in this dispute. I had the opportunity to meet his managing director, and the House may be interested to know that during the 12 months which have gone by three individuals, all of whom have been repudiated by him, have had to go back on undertakings which they gave to me as mediator. He has lied even to


his blacklegs. He gave them an undertaking that in no circumstances would they be dismissed during the course of his ownership of the factory.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary wishes to intervene in the debate to which he has been asked to reply.

12.44 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I am sorry to exercise that privilege, especially during a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach), because I know the honourable part which he has played in the dispute up to now. But the House will understand that I am in the position of having an obligation to put on record the Government's attitude to this complicated dispute, and with only 11 minutes left to me I should begin to do that at once.
The dispute began over the operation by women of machines which had been previously operated by men in Stockport, but always operated by women in nearby Preston. The union was informed of a plan to put women on these machines on 17th November, 1966. It immediately announced its disagreement and referred the dispute and the disagreement to its District Committee.
As a result of this reference, the district secretary asked for a meeting which it was agreed should be held on 23rd November. Two days before that meeting took place women were admitted to the firm and employed on the machines in dispute. The union claims that this constituted a breach under Section II, (b) of the Procedure Agreement, but this is and was denied by the company which went further and on the morning of 28th November engaged two more women to do the same job. Again, they were according to the union's contention, in breach of the agreement.
As a result of that action the union withdrew its labour and the company immediately offered to employ no more women while discussions were carried on. But by that time it was the view of the union that such an assurance was unacceptable. Later, the union changed its mind and said that it would accept such an assurance, only to discover that

the company, as a result of the earlier refusal, had withdrawn the offer. A return to the status quo until discussions were completed was consequently impossible. So the friction developed, the tension mounted, and the inevitable escalation resulted in the strike being declared official.
The declaration of the official strike followed the events of 3rd December, 1966. On that date 140 strikers were dismissed. On 16th December, Roberts-Arundel resigned from the Engineering Employers Association. It was a necessary step for it to take because it had publicly notified its intention of ignoring the series of national agreements to which that body is party. It withdrew recognition from the union and subsequently employed non-union labour, some of it after an advertisement in local newspapers which specifically asked for recruitment of non-union labour. Indeed, it advertised for people who wished to work.
sin a free atmosphere, not the restrictive environment of a union shop.
What did happen, or might have happened, up to the date of 3rd December, is open to dispute. Whether the procedure was ignored, or flouted, is a matter for the industry to decide. But the events between 3rd December and 16th December are incapable of more than one interpretation. Certainly, provocative steps were taken by the company—possibly intentionally provocative. They were certain to cause conflict in the industry of the bitterest sort, and were doomed to result in a loss of company profits and in great hardship to the company's employees.
Many of my hon. Friends will think that the actions of the company in those days were at least reprehensible. I am sure that the House and the nation will agree that the firm's actions were foolhardy and were bound to result in the sort of frictions, difficulties and pain which have characterised this unhappy company during the last twelve months.
After that time there were constant attempts to conciliate by my own Ministry regional industrial relations officer, by the Mayor of Stockport and by both hon. Members representing that town. One notable example was the meeting organised under the Chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South.
There were numerous interventions by my right hon. Friend, who had seen either the president of the company or the company's British representatives and others on 11 occasions. On one occasion the meeting arranged by the Regional Industrial Relations Officer ended in confusion, with the representative sent to negotiate on behalf of the company saying that he was not empowered to negotiate and was there to talk to my right hon. Friend but neither to make any promises nor to arrive at any decision.
The situation continued until 14th September of this year. That is the date that the company now claims that it was prepared to abide by the customs of the country and operate normal procedures as understood in the engineering industry. At that time, as a result of the operations of a person who has been called by some people an honest broker, a scheme of re-engagement was agreed whereby 45 of the men on strike would be either immediately re-engaged or re-engaged during the next 10 working days. The agreement broke down because no possible area of compromise was found for the re-engagement of the remaining 41 striking men.
Shortly afterwards Mr. Pomeranz himself offered a scheme but that appeared to the union to be inferior to that offered on 14th September. The union therefore rejected it. Finally, there was a scheme promoted by Mr. Barnard, of the Manchester Engineering Employers' Association, who personally, and as a representative of his Association, deserves the congratulations of the House and of my hon. Friends for what he tried to do to resolve this dispute. He suggested at the time that some of the striking men should be re-employed by Roberts-Arundel and others loaned to Stockport employers until they could be taken back into the firm.
That idea was canvassed by him and reinforced on 23rd November, at a meeting which my right hon. Friend had in the Ministry in which Mr. Scanlon of the A.E.U. and Mr. Jukes, of the Engineering Employers' Association, took part. That is how the position stood. It was hoped until last night that the Barnard agreement could be implemented. My hon. Friend said quite rightly that last night what might be the final meeting in this unhappy story took place—a meeting between Mr. Pomeranz, my right hon.

Friend, myself, officers of my Department, associates of Mr. Pomeranz and eventually Mr. Scanlon, of the A.E.U. and Mr. Jukes, of the Engineering Employers' Association.
As a result of that meeting, Mr. Pomeranz issued a statement at approximately 4.45 p.m. today. A superficial reading of that statement might lead the House and the country to believe that that meeting began in the hope that Roberts-Arundel could be resuscitated, that it could operate at full strength and that a period of industrial animosity would come to an end as a result of that full-strength working. Equally, a superficial reading of it might lead the country to believe that those hopes foundered only because of the inability of the trade unions to agree to schemes put forward by the company.
I have to tell the House that, in fact, at the beginning of the meeting, before the President of the A.E.U. was present, it was made very clear to my right hon. Friend and myself that Mr. Pomeranz had no hope of reorganising the firm as a manufacturing unit and that all he aspired to do was to operate a small company committed to servicing their appliances. This small company would not operate on a scale which would enable the re-employment of the men now on strike, or, indeed, to keep in employment those Stockport citizens who had been recruited since the strike began. That was Mr. Pomeranz's original position and that was his position when the meeting came to an end.
We are, therefore, left in a universally sad situation. The striking members of the Amalgamated Engineering Union have virtually no area in which to negotiate because the firm they left perhaps a year ago could no longer provide them with employment. We are left in a situation in which over 100 non-union workers who were recruited by the firm and promised protection by the firm now find that they have to face the wrath of their unionised colleagues without the protection of the firm which encouraged them to take up anti-union attitudes in the first place.
We also find that the company has created in the minds of many people in this country fears about the general attitude of American companies, and of American capital when it comes to Great


Britain. I want to rectify some of that impression by reminding hon. Members that some of the best industrial relations in this country are to be found in companies which are owned by American capital and managed by American citizens. In my view, Roberts-Arundel is a unique, or nearly unique, example of what happens when foreign capital comes here, and no conclusion about general American industrial relations should be drawn from their very unhappy experience.

Mr. Stanley Orme: rose—

Mr. Hattersley: I have two more points to make before I can permit my hon. Friend to intervene.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North asked for a general inquiry. My right hon. Friend will consider whether even now that is the appropriate action to take. Certainly he will consider it, even if there is no hope of employment for the men, if some moral satisfaction can be obtained from investigating how the position arose.
One other point ought to be remembered. We have been asked for

legislation to make sure that this sort of situation does not occur again. Clearly, that must be considered in the light of the report of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations. But many people throughout the country who urge trade union legislation must understand that if it comes about there are companies which will be required to operate in a more responsible, more respectable and more honourable way than this company has operated in the past. If nothing else comes out of this sad and squalid episode, I hope that we shall at least learn, through this example of destructive industrial relations, something on which all firms can base their improved practices. The knowledge that any company which tries to behave in an arbitrary, unrealistic and destructive way will—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes to One o'clock.